Kevin Munger’s Generation Gap: Why the Baby Boomers Still Dominate American Politics and Culture is the latest addition in a growing collection of analyses that attempt to evaluate the impact of millennials and Generation Z on the body politic. Combining a review of cultural trends, election statistics, news consumption patterns, and unique survey data, Munger argues that baby boomer political dominance is perched to run headlong into younger, tech-savvy cohorts who have the potential—but not yet the power—to replace them. Munger calls attention to the ways in which the political system has favored boomer issues and concerns, highlighting how the ensuing public policies reward the older generation and undermine the collective economic fortune of today’s youth. This review discusses the history of generational research as well as recent work about today’s younger cohorts to provide context for understanding both the strengths and shortcomings of Generation Gap. The field is richer with Munger’s contribution, but many critical questions remain.
凯文·芒格（Kevin Munger）的《代沟：为什么婴儿潮一代仍然主宰着美国政治和文化》（Generation Gap:Why the Baby Boomers Still Dominate American Politics and Culture）是越来越多的分析中的最新一篇，这些分析试图评估千禧一代和Z世代对政治体的影响。结合对文化趋势、选举统计数据、新闻消费模式和独特调查数据的审查，芒格认为，婴儿潮一代的政治主导地位注定会一头扎进更年轻、精通技术的群体，他们有潜力——但还没有权力——取代他们。芒格呼吁人们注意政治体系对婴儿潮一代问题和担忧的青睐，并强调随之而来的公共政策如何奖励老一辈，破坏当今年轻人的集体经济财富。这篇综述讨论了代沟研究的历史以及最近关于当今年轻群体的工作，为理解代沟的优势和劣势提供了背景。芒格的贡献使这一领域更加丰富，但仍存在许多关键问题。
{"title":"Youth, Generations, and Generational Research","authors":"Molly W. Andolina","doi":"10.1093/psquar/qqad079","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/psquar/qqad079","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Kevin Munger’s Generation Gap: Why the Baby Boomers Still Dominate American Politics and Culture is the latest addition in a growing collection of analyses that attempt to evaluate the impact of millennials and Generation Z on the body politic. Combining a review of cultural trends, election statistics, news consumption patterns, and unique survey data, Munger argues that baby boomer political dominance is perched to run headlong into younger, tech-savvy cohorts who have the potential—but not yet the power—to replace them. Munger calls attention to the ways in which the political system has favored boomer issues and concerns, highlighting how the ensuing public policies reward the older generation and undermine the collective economic fortune of today’s youth. This review discusses the history of generational research as well as recent work about today’s younger cohorts to provide context for understanding both the strengths and shortcomings of Generation Gap. The field is richer with Munger’s contribution, but many critical questions remain.","PeriodicalId":51491,"journal":{"name":"Political Science Quarterly","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2023-08-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42704167","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The health epidemic of 2020 set off a culture war and, like all national crises, revealed exactly who we Americans are. This essay examines Danielle Allen's Democracy in the Time of Coronavirus, a wise, humane, and indispensable guide for negotiating a health pandemic—if not this one, the inevitable next one. It reflects on her five-point guide to handling pandemics, comparing her ideals to the national experience. This essay places Allen's monograph in the context of the larger literature on the coronavirus in America. The essay traces how and why public health fell into the American culture wars, notes the brief glimmer of a genuine social welfare safety net that briefly emerged during the crisis, and summarizes the epidemic's dismal toll on American lives, suggesting why even much poorer nations did a better job of protecting their citizens.
{"title":"Coronavirus and Culture War: Blunders, Defiance, and Glimmers of Solidarity","authors":"J. Morone","doi":"10.1093/psquar/qqad071","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/psquar/qqad071","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 The health epidemic of 2020 set off a culture war and, like all national crises, revealed exactly who we Americans are. This essay examines Danielle Allen's Democracy in the Time of Coronavirus, a wise, humane, and indispensable guide for negotiating a health pandemic—if not this one, the inevitable next one. It reflects on her five-point guide to handling pandemics, comparing her ideals to the national experience. This essay places Allen's monograph in the context of the larger literature on the coronavirus in America. The essay traces how and why public health fell into the American culture wars, notes the brief glimmer of a genuine social welfare safety net that briefly emerged during the crisis, and summarizes the epidemic's dismal toll on American lives, suggesting why even much poorer nations did a better job of protecting their citizens.","PeriodicalId":51491,"journal":{"name":"Political Science Quarterly","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2023-08-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41811604","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
South Africa has been an important case in both scholarship and the public eye for decades. The anti-apartheid struggle saw mass international participation, and there was significant international optimism about the South African transition to multiracial democracy in 1994. Yet in the years since the advent of the new democratic dispensation in South Africa, a kind of pessimism has set in about the prospects for the country and for its democracy. Into this conversation Evan Lieberman's book, Until We Have Won Our Liberty, inserts a new perspective, arguing that South African democracy has been remarkably successful. Relying on a largely descriptive analysis of progress in infrastructure, rights guarantees, and dignified development, Lieberman argues that democratic performance in the country, especially given the starting point for democracy, has exceeded reasonable expectations. Lieberman's focus on what has gone right in South African democracy bucks many disciplinary and scholarly norms but presents a compelling argument for introspection on the part of the field.
几十年来，南非一直是学术界和公众关注的重要案例。反种族隔离斗争得到了国际社会的广泛参与，国际社会对南非在1994年向多种族民主过渡抱有极大的乐观态度。然而，自南非出现新的民主体制以来的几年里，人们对该国及其民主的前景产生了一种悲观情绪。埃文·利伯曼（Evan Lieberman）的书《直到我们赢得自由》（Until We Have Wond Our Liberty）在这场对话中插入了一个新的视角，认为南非的民主非常成功。利伯曼对基础设施、权利保障和有尊严发展方面的进展进行了大量描述性分析，他认为，该国的民主表现，特别是考虑到民主的起点，已经超出了合理的预期。利伯曼对南非民主的关注违背了许多学科和学术规范，但为该领域的反思提供了一个令人信服的论据。
{"title":"What Went Right? South African Democracy and the Study of Political Science","authors":"Carolyn E. Holmes","doi":"10.1093/psquar/qqad072","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/psquar/qqad072","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 South Africa has been an important case in both scholarship and the public eye for decades. The anti-apartheid struggle saw mass international participation, and there was significant international optimism about the South African transition to multiracial democracy in 1994. Yet in the years since the advent of the new democratic dispensation in South Africa, a kind of pessimism has set in about the prospects for the country and for its democracy. Into this conversation Evan Lieberman's book, Until We Have Won Our Liberty, inserts a new perspective, arguing that South African democracy has been remarkably successful. Relying on a largely descriptive analysis of progress in infrastructure, rights guarantees, and dignified development, Lieberman argues that democratic performance in the country, especially given the starting point for democracy, has exceeded reasonable expectations. Lieberman's focus on what has gone right in South African democracy bucks many disciplinary and scholarly norms but presents a compelling argument for introspection on the part of the field.","PeriodicalId":51491,"journal":{"name":"Political Science Quarterly","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2023-08-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44870086","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Jack Snyder's book Human Rights for Pragmatists: Social Power in Modern Times is less a theory of human rights than a political sociology of liberal modernization. Focusing on that account, this article argues that the story of liberal modernization Snyder’s book presents is a distortional fable and, as such, undermines its own claims to pragmatism. This review further contends that this fable of liberal modernization creates a fantasy in which the solution to the problems of contemporary liberal states and the liberal international order is more liberalism. The review concludes by suggesting that any pragmatic account must at least take seriously the possibility that liberalism is part of the problem and, therefore, that it might not be the solution.
{"title":"Liberal Pragmatism and Liberal Fantasy in the Era of Backlash Politics","authors":"Michael Goodhart","doi":"10.1093/psquar/qqad080","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/psquar/qqad080","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Jack Snyder's book Human Rights for Pragmatists: Social Power in Modern Times is less a theory of human rights than a political sociology of liberal modernization. Focusing on that account, this article argues that the story of liberal modernization Snyder’s book presents is a distortional fable and, as such, undermines its own claims to pragmatism. This review further contends that this fable of liberal modernization creates a fantasy in which the solution to the problems of contemporary liberal states and the liberal international order is more liberalism. The review concludes by suggesting that any pragmatic account must at least take seriously the possibility that liberalism is part of the problem and, therefore, that it might not be the solution.","PeriodicalId":51491,"journal":{"name":"Political Science Quarterly","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2023-08-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44113274","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
With openness comes vulnerability. David Sloss's new work, Tyrants on Twitter, elevates the abuse of social media by autocrats to a new war front, reminiscent of the concerns for foreign penetration during the Cold War. His response to this new round of “information warfare” is the mobilization of a transnational alliance of the 40 or so leading democratic countries to register citizens for use of social media and filter out tyrants and their fronts, be they real people or bots. The book begins by chronicling the extent of democratic decline, a well-defended starting point. More complicated is the argument that the correlation between democratic decline and foreign interference establishes the causal role of the latter. Even more difficult is the conclusion that there is need for war-like footing to mobilize against foreign threats. The review ends with a note of caution on the costs associated with democratic societies closing up in the face of foreign challenge.
开放带来了脆弱。大卫·斯洛斯(David Sloss)的新作《Twitter上的暴君》(Tyrants on Twitter)将独裁者滥用社交媒体的问题提升到了一个新的战争前线，让人想起冷战期间对外国渗透的担忧。他对这新一轮“信息战”的回应是，动员大约40个主要民主国家组成一个跨国联盟，为公民注册使用社交媒体，过滤掉暴君和他们的幌子，无论是真人还是机器人。这本书首先记录了民主衰落的程度，这是一个有充分理由的起点。更为复杂的论点是，民主衰落与外国干涉之间的相关性确立了后者的因果作用。更困难的是得出这样的结论:需要一个类似战争的立足点来动员起来对抗外国威胁。报告最后对民主社会在面对外国挑战时闭关锁国的代价提出了警告。
{"title":"Deterrence Without Mutual Destruction","authors":"S. Issacharoff","doi":"10.1093/psquar/qqad069","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/psquar/qqad069","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 With openness comes vulnerability. David Sloss's new work, Tyrants on Twitter, elevates the abuse of social media by autocrats to a new war front, reminiscent of the concerns for foreign penetration during the Cold War. His response to this new round of “information warfare” is the mobilization of a transnational alliance of the 40 or so leading democratic countries to register citizens for use of social media and filter out tyrants and their fronts, be they real people or bots. The book begins by chronicling the extent of democratic decline, a well-defended starting point. More complicated is the argument that the correlation between democratic decline and foreign interference establishes the causal role of the latter. Even more difficult is the conclusion that there is need for war-like footing to mobilize against foreign threats. The review ends with a note of caution on the costs associated with democratic societies closing up in the face of foreign challenge.","PeriodicalId":51491,"journal":{"name":"Political Science Quarterly","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2023-08-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44706526","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Mario Daniels and John Krige's Knowledge Regulation and National Security in Postwar America is a detailed history of the U.S. use of export controls and domestic debates over that use. Their account describes how issues of trade and commerce increasingly have been viewed in terms of security. Their history, which ends in 2020, does not directly address the current use of export controls and other measures to restrict the transfer of knowledge but is highly relevant to issues surrounding that use. Such controls represent a retreat from globalization and raise questions about their economic costs to the United States, their ultimate political impact on the targeted country, and their consequences for scientific inquiry.
马里奥·丹尼尔斯(Mario Daniels)和约翰·克里格(John Krige)的《战后美国的知识管制与国家安全》(Knowledge Regulation and National Security in the战后美国)详细介绍了美国使用出口管制的历史以及国内对这种使用的争论。他们的叙述描述了如何越来越多地从安全的角度看待贸易和商业问题。它们的历史将于2020年结束，并没有直接解决当前使用出口管制和其他措施来限制知识转移的问题，但与使用这些措施的问题高度相关。这样的管制代表了对全球化的退步，并引发了对其对美国的经济成本、对目标国家的最终政治影响以及对科学探究的后果的质疑。
{"title":"Export Controls and the Junction of Economics and National Security: A Review Article","authors":"Paul R. Pillar","doi":"10.1093/psquar/qqad075","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/psquar/qqad075","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Mario Daniels and John Krige's Knowledge Regulation and National Security in Postwar America is a detailed history of the U.S. use of export controls and domestic debates over that use. Their account describes how issues of trade and commerce increasingly have been viewed in terms of security. Their history, which ends in 2020, does not directly address the current use of export controls and other measures to restrict the transfer of knowledge but is highly relevant to issues surrounding that use. Such controls represent a retreat from globalization and raise questions about their economic costs to the United States, their ultimate political impact on the targeted country, and their consequences for scientific inquiry.","PeriodicalId":51491,"journal":{"name":"Political Science Quarterly","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2023-07-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48023280","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In a very lucid account, Efrén Pérez and Margit Tavits’s Voicing Politics: How Language Shapes Public Opinion reports empirical studies demonstrating that language is an important foundation in nation-building. Their research makes excellent use the considerable percentage of Estonians who are proficient in Estonian and Russian, prominent languages spoken in Estonia; the two languages differ in how they characterize gender, how they characterize the future, and how they characterize ethnicity. Pérez and Tavits make use of experiments and survey modes of investigation. And across both modes and across many opinions, they find repeated, hence reliable, and modest “nudges” due to the language bilingual speakers are randomly assigned to use. I expand the focus to consider how language is but one of the important means by which the human species is able to generate very different social forms. Some societies—or better, polities—are more rigid, reliant on past practices to survive; some are more fluid and open to new possibilities. Each has proven vulnerable. I argue that the diversity of sociability enhances the likelihood of the survival of the species by having some better able to address the challenges of the moment—a better strategy than a fixed single solution.
Efrén Pérez和Margit Tavits的《Voicing Politics:How Language Shapes Public Opinion》报告的实证研究表明，语言是国家建设的重要基础。他们的研究很好地利用了相当大比例的爱沙尼亚人，他们精通爱沙尼亚语和俄语，这是爱沙尼亚的主要语言；这两种语言在如何描述性别、如何描述未来以及如何描述种族方面有所不同。Pérez和Tavits利用实验和调查模式进行调查。在这两种模式和许多观点中，他们发现，由于双语使用者被随机分配使用的语言，重复的、因此可靠的、适度的“轻推”。我将重点扩展到考虑语言是人类产生非常不同的社会形式的重要手段之一。一些社会——或者更好的是，政体——更加僵化，依赖过去的做法来生存；有些更具流动性，并对新的可能性持开放态度。事实证明，每一个都很脆弱。我认为，社交能力的多样性通过让一些人更好地应对当下的挑战来提高物种生存的可能性——这是一种比固定的单一解决方案更好的策略。
{"title":"How Do Humans Create and Sustain Viable Communities? A Review Essay","authors":"G. Marcus","doi":"10.1093/psquar/qqad067","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/psquar/qqad067","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 In a very lucid account, Efrén Pérez and Margit Tavits’s Voicing Politics: How Language Shapes Public Opinion reports empirical studies demonstrating that language is an important foundation in nation-building. Their research makes excellent use the considerable percentage of Estonians who are proficient in Estonian and Russian, prominent languages spoken in Estonia; the two languages differ in how they characterize gender, how they characterize the future, and how they characterize ethnicity. Pérez and Tavits make use of experiments and survey modes of investigation. And across both modes and across many opinions, they find repeated, hence reliable, and modest “nudges” due to the language bilingual speakers are randomly assigned to use. I expand the focus to consider how language is but one of the important means by which the human species is able to generate very different social forms. Some societies—or better, polities—are more rigid, reliant on past practices to survive; some are more fluid and open to new possibilities. Each has proven vulnerable. I argue that the diversity of sociability enhances the likelihood of the survival of the species by having some better able to address the challenges of the moment—a better strategy than a fixed single solution.","PeriodicalId":51491,"journal":{"name":"Political Science Quarterly","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2023-07-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47820880","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
We are living through a renaissance in studies of politics and policymaking in the American states, and Jacob Grumbach’s pathbreaking book Laboratories against Democracy extends this remarkable streak. This important book tracks questions about nationalization, federalism, policymaking, and democracy across the traditional subfield boundaries of American politics. Indeed, the book’s attention to the role of political parties and federalist institutions in our nationalized politics provides a critical counterweight given prior research’s emphasis on political behavior. Grumbach’s book also expands the scope of outcomes under consideration, as it takes up the relationship between nationalization and democratic backsliding. While I voice some skepticism about the claim that federalism exacerbates contemporary threats to American democracy, this incisive book demands consideration, and is in many respects a model of synthetic scholarship.
{"title":"“Laboratories against Democracy” and the Case against Federalism","authors":"D. Hopkins","doi":"10.1093/psquar/qqad044","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/psquar/qqad044","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 We are living through a renaissance in studies of politics and policymaking in the American states, and Jacob Grumbach’s pathbreaking book Laboratories against Democracy extends this remarkable streak. This important book tracks questions about nationalization, federalism, policymaking, and democracy across the traditional subfield boundaries of American politics. Indeed, the book’s attention to the role of political parties and federalist institutions in our nationalized politics provides a critical counterweight given prior research’s emphasis on political behavior. Grumbach’s book also expands the scope of outcomes under consideration, as it takes up the relationship between nationalization and democratic backsliding. While I voice some skepticism about the claim that federalism exacerbates contemporary threats to American democracy, this incisive book demands consideration, and is in many respects a model of synthetic scholarship.","PeriodicalId":51491,"journal":{"name":"Political Science Quarterly","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2023-07-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43631854","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
How do states secure and maintain political authority over territory? In Settling for Less: Why States Colonize and Why They Stop, Lachlan McNamee explores one common mechanism for building authority, namely settler colonialism, that should be of interest to scholars beyond those interested in colonialism per se. Building a novel theory, he explains when settler colonialism is employed by states and, importantly, why it typically becomes obsolete with economic development. Using new data, he surveys paired cases of Indonesian settlement in New Guinea and Australia's failed attempt in Papua New Guinea, as well as two periods of Chinese settlement in Xinjiang. One underdeveloped dimension of this otherwise outstanding book is the strategic choices of the indigenes. A second dimension is the alternatives to settler colonialism, including direct and indirect rule through indigenous proxies. While McNamee pushes the research frontier outwards, exerting and consolidating state authority over peripheries remain a challenge. To the extent settler colonialism “works,” that is, migrants from a majority group move into and dominate the periphery so as to attach the region more firmly to the national-state, the indigenous community is not only displaced and exploited in the moment but it is economically and politically undermined for the future. The indigenes are not credibly protected against future exploitation but, at the extreme, are eliminated in genocidal wars.
{"title":"Statebuilding in the Periphery: Why States Colonize and Why They Stop","authors":"David A. Lake","doi":"10.1093/psquar/qqad073","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/psquar/qqad073","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 How do states secure and maintain political authority over territory? In Settling for Less: Why States Colonize and Why They Stop, Lachlan McNamee explores one common mechanism for building authority, namely settler colonialism, that should be of interest to scholars beyond those interested in colonialism per se. Building a novel theory, he explains when settler colonialism is employed by states and, importantly, why it typically becomes obsolete with economic development. Using new data, he surveys paired cases of Indonesian settlement in New Guinea and Australia's failed attempt in Papua New Guinea, as well as two periods of Chinese settlement in Xinjiang. One underdeveloped dimension of this otherwise outstanding book is the strategic choices of the indigenes. A second dimension is the alternatives to settler colonialism, including direct and indirect rule through indigenous proxies. While McNamee pushes the research frontier outwards, exerting and consolidating state authority over peripheries remain a challenge. To the extent settler colonialism “works,” that is, migrants from a majority group move into and dominate the periphery so as to attach the region more firmly to the national-state, the indigenous community is not only displaced and exploited in the moment but it is economically and politically undermined for the future. The indigenes are not credibly protected against future exploitation but, at the extreme, are eliminated in genocidal wars.","PeriodicalId":51491,"journal":{"name":"Political Science Quarterly","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2023-07-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47852439","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Has the United States been trying to contain China? If so, why now? Still, proponents of Chinese containment have been critical of the United States' continued fixation with Russia - a declining state - arguing that this diversion undermines a focused Chinacentric strategy. This is not the first time that U.S. strategic attention has been diverted from China. Back in 2001, U.S. Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, embarked on an ambitious endeavor to revise U.S. grand strategy and focus on China which was perceived as the sole state capable of becoming a peer rival to the United States. However, following the tragic events of 11 September 2001, the Bush administration redirected its focus away from great power antagonism with China towards the Global War on Terror. Could any political scientist, speculating upon the direction of American grand strategy in the summer of 2001, by any accounts have foreseen that the United States would waste significant strategic capital in pursuing terrorists in Afghanistan and promoting democracy in the Middle East over the next decade? Nowadays, could any political theorist in December 2021 have foreseen that the United States would drive Russia into the open arms of China and create Mackinder's Eurasian nightmare? Classical realism may have the best answers. Jonathan Kirshner's latest treatise explains why past is more than prologue and how classical realism is superior to other “realisms” in providing the most authoritative insights about the complex strategic behavior of states.
{"title":"Classical Realism and the Rise of Sino-American Antagonism: A Review Essay","authors":"Athanasios Platias, V. Trigkas","doi":"10.1093/psquar/qqad078","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/psquar/qqad078","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Has the United States been trying to contain China? If so, why now? Still, proponents of Chinese containment have been critical of the United States' continued fixation with Russia - a declining state - arguing that this diversion undermines a focused Chinacentric strategy. This is not the first time that U.S. strategic attention has been diverted from China. Back in 2001, U.S. Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, embarked on an ambitious endeavor to revise U.S. grand strategy and focus on China which was perceived as the sole state capable of becoming a peer rival to the United States. However, following the tragic events of 11 September 2001, the Bush administration redirected its focus away from great power antagonism with China towards the Global War on Terror. Could any political scientist, speculating upon the direction of American grand strategy in the summer of 2001, by any accounts have foreseen that the United States would waste significant strategic capital in pursuing terrorists in Afghanistan and promoting democracy in the Middle East over the next decade? Nowadays, could any political theorist in December 2021 have foreseen that the United States would drive Russia into the open arms of China and create Mackinder's Eurasian nightmare? Classical realism may have the best answers. Jonathan Kirshner's latest treatise explains why past is more than prologue and how classical realism is superior to other “realisms” in providing the most authoritative insights about the complex strategic behavior of states.","PeriodicalId":51491,"journal":{"name":"Political Science Quarterly","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2023-07-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45615068","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"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：