Pub Date : 2022-01-01DOI: 10.1177/00027162211069730
Ashley Jardina, R. Mickey
Political observers have expressed concern about the failure of some Americans to uphold democratic principles. We argue that support for antidemocratic authoritarian governance is associated with some whites’ psychological attachment to their racial group and a desire to maintain their group’s power and status in the face of multiracial democracy. Drawing on historical work, we posit that whites’ efforts to restrict democracy are deeply rooted in America’s past; and we present empirical analysis demonstrating that today, whites with higher levels of racial solidarity are notably more supportive of authoritarian leadership than whites who do not possess a racial group consciousness.
{"title":"White Racial Solidarity and Opposition to American Democracy","authors":"Ashley Jardina, R. Mickey","doi":"10.1177/00027162211069730","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00027162211069730","url":null,"abstract":"Political observers have expressed concern about the failure of some Americans to uphold democratic principles. We argue that support for antidemocratic authoritarian governance is associated with some whites’ psychological attachment to their racial group and a desire to maintain their group’s power and status in the face of multiracial democracy. Drawing on historical work, we posit that whites’ efforts to restrict democracy are deeply rooted in America’s past; and we present empirical analysis demonstrating that today, whites with higher levels of racial solidarity are notably more supportive of authoritarian leadership than whites who do not possess a racial group consciousness.","PeriodicalId":48352,"journal":{"name":"Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44414899","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-01DOI: 10.1177/00027162211070061
Suzanne Mettler, T. Brown
Throughout American history and as recently as the early 1990s, each of the major political parties included both rural and some urban constituencies, but since then the nation has become deeply divided geographically. Rural areas have become increasingly dominated by the Republican Party and urban places by the Democratic Party. This growing rural-urban divide is fostering polarization and democratic vulnerability. We examine why this cleavage might endanger democracy, highlighting various mechanisms: the combination of long-standing political institutions that give extra leverage to sparsely populated places with a transformed party system in which one party dominates those places; growing social divergence between rural and urban areas that fosters “us” versus “them” dynamics; economic changes that make rural areas ripe for grievance politics; and party leaders willing to cater to such resentments. We present empirical evidence that this divide is threatening democracy and consider how it might be mitigated.
{"title":"The Growing Rural-Urban Political Divide and Democratic Vulnerability","authors":"Suzanne Mettler, T. Brown","doi":"10.1177/00027162211070061","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00027162211070061","url":null,"abstract":"Throughout American history and as recently as the early 1990s, each of the major political parties included both rural and some urban constituencies, but since then the nation has become deeply divided geographically. Rural areas have become increasingly dominated by the Republican Party and urban places by the Democratic Party. This growing rural-urban divide is fostering polarization and democratic vulnerability. We examine why this cleavage might endanger democracy, highlighting various mechanisms: the combination of long-standing political institutions that give extra leverage to sparsely populated places with a transformed party system in which one party dominates those places; growing social divergence between rural and urban areas that fosters “us” versus “them” dynamics; economic changes that make rural areas ripe for grievance politics; and party leaders willing to cater to such resentments. We present empirical evidence that this divide is threatening democracy and consider how it might be mitigated.","PeriodicalId":48352,"journal":{"name":"Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42410522","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-01DOI: 10.1177/00027162221077516
Suzanne Mettler, R. Lieberman, Jamila Michener, Thomas B. Pepinsky, Kenneth M. Roberts
A democracy is in trouble. even before the 2016 election, the united States had slipped in international democracy rankings, losing its long-held stature as a “full” democracy and joining the “flawed” democracies (economist Intelligence unit 2020; V-Dem Institute 2021). Scholars of democracy around the world have identified several key weaknesses in American democracy, such as an increasingly dysfunctional government and fraying social cohesion, that undermine the regime’s accountability and responsivness. For decades, political scientists have observed key threats to democracy that have been on the rise: political polarization; conflict—incited by racism and nativism—over the boundaries of American citizenship and the civic status of those in different social groups; soaring economic inequality; and executive aggrandizement (Mettler and Lieberman 2020). the confluence of these threats fueled the candidacy
一个民主国家陷入了困境。早在2016年大选之前，美国的国际民主排名就已经下滑，失去了长期以来作为“完全”民主国家的地位，加入了“有缺陷的”民主国家行列(经济学人智库2020;V-Dem研究所2021)。世界各地研究民主的学者已经指出了美国民主的几个关键弱点，比如政府功能日益失调，社会凝聚力日益削弱，这些都削弱了该政权的问责和反应能力。几十年来，政治学家观察到民主面临的主要威胁一直在上升:政治两极分化;由种族主义和本土主义煽动的冲突，跨越了美国公民身份和不同社会群体公民地位的界限;经济不平等加剧;和行政强化(Mettler and Lieberman 2020)。这些威胁共同推动了他的竞选
{"title":"Democratic Vulnerabilities and Pathways for Reform","authors":"Suzanne Mettler, R. Lieberman, Jamila Michener, Thomas B. Pepinsky, Kenneth M. Roberts","doi":"10.1177/00027162221077516","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00027162221077516","url":null,"abstract":"A democracy is in trouble. even before the 2016 election, the united States had slipped in international democracy rankings, losing its long-held stature as a “full” democracy and joining the “flawed” democracies (economist Intelligence unit 2020; V-Dem Institute 2021). Scholars of democracy around the world have identified several key weaknesses in American democracy, such as an increasingly dysfunctional government and fraying social cohesion, that undermine the regime’s accountability and responsivness. For decades, political scientists have observed key threats to democracy that have been on the rise: political polarization; conflict—incited by racism and nativism—over the boundaries of American citizenship and the civic status of those in different social groups; soaring economic inequality; and executive aggrandizement (Mettler and Lieberman 2020). the confluence of these threats fueled the candidacy","PeriodicalId":48352,"journal":{"name":"Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47091840","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-01DOI: 10.1177/00027162221078340
M. Francis
This article examines the impact of anti-Black state violence on U.S. democracy, tracing the history of that violence and how it has changed from the end of the nineteenth century to the present. I underscore the persistence of state violence against Black Americans, how it undercuts democratization, and how those dynamics provide a useful context for ongoing discussions about the imperfect development of democracy in the United States. I also explore the Black Lives Matter Movement’s (BLMM) emphasis on dismantling the criminal punishment system and the movement’s amplification of the voices of citizens who have often been excluded from the formal political process. I argue that by centering the issue of anti-Black violence, the BLMM is offering a transformative pathway to a more fully functional democracy.
{"title":"Can Black Lives Matter within U.S. Democracy?","authors":"M. Francis","doi":"10.1177/00027162221078340","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00027162221078340","url":null,"abstract":"This article examines the impact of anti-Black state violence on U.S. democracy, tracing the history of that violence and how it has changed from the end of the nineteenth century to the present. I underscore the persistence of state violence against Black Americans, how it undercuts democratization, and how those dynamics provide a useful context for ongoing discussions about the imperfect development of democracy in the United States. I also explore the Black Lives Matter Movement’s (BLMM) emphasis on dismantling the criminal punishment system and the movement’s amplification of the voices of citizens who have often been excluded from the formal political process. I argue that by centering the issue of anti-Black violence, the BLMM is offering a transformative pathway to a more fully functional democracy.","PeriodicalId":48352,"journal":{"name":"Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47096761","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-01DOI: 10.1177/00027162211070885
J. Grumbach, Jamila Michener
The United States has a particularly decentralized form of federalism that provides important authority to multiple levels of government. This decentralization is typically seen as beneficial for democratic politics. But while federalism both constrains and enables democratic participation, we argue that it does so unevenly, and in ways that deepen inequalities in the processes of democracy. We propose four mechanisms by which the institutional decentralization of American federalism obstructs or reduces democratic accountability and equality: (1) inequality in venue selection, (2) information asymmetry, (3) an unequal exit threat, and (4) decentralized accountability. In contemporary American politics, these mechanisms both create and expand advantages for economic and political elites, while generating and deepening barriers to the full and equitable inclusion of less powerful groups in society, especially economically and racially marginalized Americans.
{"title":"American Federalism, Political Inequality, and Democratic Erosion","authors":"J. Grumbach, Jamila Michener","doi":"10.1177/00027162211070885","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00027162211070885","url":null,"abstract":"The United States has a particularly decentralized form of federalism that provides important authority to multiple levels of government. This decentralization is typically seen as beneficial for democratic politics. But while federalism both constrains and enables democratic participation, we argue that it does so unevenly, and in ways that deepen inequalities in the processes of democracy. We propose four mechanisms by which the institutional decentralization of American federalism obstructs or reduces democratic accountability and equality: (1) inequality in venue selection, (2) information asymmetry, (3) an unequal exit threat, and (4) decentralized accountability. In contemporary American politics, these mechanisms both create and expand advantages for economic and political elites, while generating and deepening barriers to the full and equitable inclusion of less powerful groups in society, especially economically and racially marginalized Americans.","PeriodicalId":48352,"journal":{"name":"Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44840447","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-01DOI: 10.1177/00027162211072952
R. Mickey
After a half century of stable performance, American democracy is now under threat. The threat emerged from nationalized party competition, but it is made manifest largely in the actions of Republican politicians at the state level. This article describes these actions and suggests how and why the current threat to democracy differs from past periods.
{"title":"Challenges to Subnational Democracy in the United States, Past and Present","authors":"R. Mickey","doi":"10.1177/00027162211072952","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00027162211072952","url":null,"abstract":"After a half century of stable performance, American democracy is now under threat. The threat emerged from nationalized party competition, but it is made manifest largely in the actions of Republican politicians at the state level. This article describes these actions and suggests how and why the current threat to democracy differs from past periods.","PeriodicalId":48352,"journal":{"name":"Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47575510","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-01DOI: 10.1177/00027162211069729
S. Goodman
How do citizens define their civic obligation when their country faces a democratic threat? Do citizens of a democracy think it is important to uphold liberal democratic values or to participate in governance? Do they embrace values that protect democracy, or do they just protect their political party or “side”? I examine changes to citizenship norms in the context of democratic threat using observational data from the United States, the United Kingdom, and Germany. I compare trends between 2004 and 2019, which show a weakening in the consensus of “good citizen” norms. Specifically, partisans on the left are more likely to value diversity, vigilance, and tolerance; while partisans on the right become more supportive of values like obeying the law. These differences are reduced in consensus-based political systems, but still the consequences are concerning: when the ties of citizenship norms become weaker, so too does national unity, which is integral to democratic legitimacy and stability.
{"title":"“Good Citizens” in Democratic Hard Times","authors":"S. Goodman","doi":"10.1177/00027162211069729","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00027162211069729","url":null,"abstract":"How do citizens define their civic obligation when their country faces a democratic threat? Do citizens of a democracy think it is important to uphold liberal democratic values or to participate in governance? Do they embrace values that protect democracy, or do they just protect their political party or “side”? I examine changes to citizenship norms in the context of democratic threat using observational data from the United States, the United Kingdom, and Germany. I compare trends between 2004 and 2019, which show a weakening in the consensus of “good citizen” norms. Specifically, partisans on the left are more likely to value diversity, vigilance, and tolerance; while partisans on the right become more supportive of values like obeying the law. These differences are reduced in consensus-based political systems, but still the consequences are concerning: when the ties of citizenship norms become weaker, so too does national unity, which is integral to democratic legitimacy and stability.","PeriodicalId":48352,"journal":{"name":"Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49092342","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-01DOI: 10.1177/00027162221077471
Hahrie Han, Jae Yeon Kim
We examine the ways in which change in civil society has contributed to the erosion of democracy in the United States. Democracy demands that people commit to pluralistic self-determination, which means that people must be willing to seek power and also share it. We argue that civil society plays two important roles in sustaining people’s willingness to do both: first, civil society cultivates a capacity for expressing choice; and second, it teaches capacities and provides opportunities for people to negotiate power. We show that in recent decades, civil society’s emphasis has moved more toward expressing choice and away from the creation of venues for negotiating power. We conclude with recommendations for researchers, civil society leaders, funders, and policy-makers who are interested in committing to forms of civil society that take power seriously.
{"title":"Civil Society, Realized: Equipping the Mass Public to Express Choice and Negotiate Power","authors":"Hahrie Han, Jae Yeon Kim","doi":"10.1177/00027162221077471","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00027162221077471","url":null,"abstract":"We examine the ways in which change in civil society has contributed to the erosion of democracy in the United States. Democracy demands that people commit to pluralistic self-determination, which means that people must be willing to seek power and also share it. We argue that civil society plays two important roles in sustaining people’s willingness to do both: first, civil society cultivates a capacity for expressing choice; and second, it teaches capacities and provides opportunities for people to negotiate power. We show that in recent decades, civil society’s emphasis has moved more toward expressing choice and away from the creation of venues for negotiating power. We conclude with recommendations for researchers, civil society leaders, funders, and policy-makers who are interested in committing to forms of civil society that take power seriously.","PeriodicalId":48352,"journal":{"name":"Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45584980","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-11-19DOI: 10.1177/00027162221083877
J. Voelkel, Mashail Malik, C. Redekopp, Robb Willer
Our tendency to interpret facts in ways that are consistent with our prior beliefs impedes evidence-based attempts to persuade partisans to change their views on pressing societal issues such as immigration. Accordingly, most prior work finds that favorable information about the impact of immigration has little or no influence on policy preferences. Here, we propose that appealing to individuals’ moral values can bolster the persuasive power of informational interventions. Across three experiments (total N = 4,616), we find that an argument based on the value of in-group loyalty, which emphasized that immigrants are critical to America’s economic strength, combined with information about the economic impact of legal immigration, significantly increased Americans’ support for legal immigration. We also find a significant effect of the moral component of this message alone, even without factual information. These results show that moral arguments can strengthen the persuasiveness of informational appeals.
{"title":"Changing Americans’ Attitudes about Immigration: Using Moral Framing to Bolster Factual Arguments","authors":"J. Voelkel, Mashail Malik, C. Redekopp, Robb Willer","doi":"10.1177/00027162221083877","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00027162221083877","url":null,"abstract":"Our tendency to interpret facts in ways that are consistent with our prior beliefs impedes evidence-based attempts to persuade partisans to change their views on pressing societal issues such as immigration. Accordingly, most prior work finds that favorable information about the impact of immigration has little or no influence on policy preferences. Here, we propose that appealing to individuals’ moral values can bolster the persuasive power of informational interventions. Across three experiments (total N = 4,616), we find that an argument based on the value of in-group loyalty, which emphasized that immigrants are critical to America’s economic strength, combined with information about the economic impact of legal immigration, significantly increased Americans’ support for legal immigration. We also find a significant effect of the moral component of this message alone, even without factual information. These results show that moral arguments can strengthen the persuasiveness of informational appeals.","PeriodicalId":48352,"journal":{"name":"Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2021-11-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48114330","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-11-01DOI: 10.1177/00027162211069429
B. Hardy, Charles M. Hokayem, Stephen Roll
The burden of the COVID-19 pandemic has not been shouldered equally by American families. Black and Hispanic communities have been hit the hardest, with the pandemic often exacerbating existing disparities. Using nationally representative data, we assess the economic and public health effects of the pandemic among different socioeconomic groups and whether typical sources of protection from economic insecurity are uniformly protective across the U.S. population. Within these sociodemographic groups, we also explore differences by education and industry. We find higher levels of employment loss among Blacks and Hispanics, those without college degrees, and frontline workers. We also find evidence that individuals and families are facing mental health episodes and are turning to costly alternative financial strategies to cope throughout the pandemic.
{"title":"Crashing without a Parachute: Racial and Educational Disparities in Unemployment during COVID-19","authors":"B. Hardy, Charles M. Hokayem, Stephen Roll","doi":"10.1177/00027162211069429","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00027162211069429","url":null,"abstract":"The burden of the COVID-19 pandemic has not been shouldered equally by American families. Black and Hispanic communities have been hit the hardest, with the pandemic often exacerbating existing disparities. Using nationally representative data, we assess the economic and public health effects of the pandemic among different socioeconomic groups and whether typical sources of protection from economic insecurity are uniformly protective across the U.S. population. Within these sociodemographic groups, we also explore differences by education and industry. We find higher levels of employment loss among Blacks and Hispanics, those without college degrees, and frontline workers. We also find evidence that individuals and families are facing mental health episodes and are turning to costly alternative financial strategies to cope throughout the pandemic.","PeriodicalId":48352,"journal":{"name":"Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2021-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43408617","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：