U.S. Politics

Violence exploding in public spaces, corruption by political figures and economic elites, the will of the people thwarted in both elections and votes in the senate, military misadventures abroad, and rampant economic inequality at home diminishing a shared sense of the common good – in sum, a republic in disarray. These descriptions are not only familiar from ancient Roman political and social life but are also recognizable to any United States citizen who follows the news and American civic life. On the Republic proceeds chronologically through the fall of the Roman Republic beginning in 133 BCE and continuing down to around 14 CE, providing a continuous narrative of the fall of the Roman Republic juxtaposed with the contemporary political landscape of the United States.

On the Republic focuses on four constellations of lessons that represent the most significant things which the fall of the Roman Republic has to teach us at this time: the dangers of political violence, the inability of individuals and institutions to save us, the finality of the loss of freedom, and lastly the importance of civic virtue. In 20 short chapters, On the Republic explores how the United States now faces many of the same challenges that toppled the Roman Republic - political divisions, economic inequality, and creeping authoritarianism. How we respond to these challenges today will determine the future of American democracy.

This thesis was presented in part fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts at University College Dublin.

The following is an examination of the visual culture of the 2016 American Elections, looking explicitly at how the Republican and Democratic parties utilised their visual culture to construct and communicate a certain image of their respective candidates to voters throughout the campaign period. This thesis will explore the visual culture of both the Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton campaigns to compile a fully realised study of the 2016 U.S. elections through visual culture.
As political campaigns usually aspire to emulate the successes of their predecessors, a portion of this thesis will be devoted to the discussion of one of the most successful visual political campaigns of recent years- Barack Obama 2008. This campaign is seen as the 'gold standard' for political imagery and indeed this legacy often eclipsed the visual culture of the 2016 elections. By looking at the Obama 2008 campaign, one can get a sense of how good graphic design can be a valuable aspect of a successful political campaign.
To balance the propagandistic bias of examining solely the official imagery of the Republican and Democratic parties, this thesis will also examine how unofficial imagery challenged and ridiculed the carefully constructed personas of the candidates. Assessing political cartoons produced in 2016, which deal with manipulating and adapting the official visual culture, will demonstrate the more critical sides of both campaign's imagery and beliefs.
By looking at the way in which both the Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton campaigns chose to portray their candidates through visual means, one can assess how effective good graphic design was on the overall campaign and whether both candidates effectively projected their political message across to the voting public. This thesis will primarily look at the ways in which visual political propaganda can influence voters and challenge perceptions of a candidate.

In this essay, I contend that political culture and campaign journalism during the 2008 U.S. presidential campaign was “pornified.” Examination of broadcast journalism, viral videos, online commentary, political pop culture, and get-out-the-vote campaigns reveals the ways in which pornographic metaphors, images, and narratives infiltrated U.S. political culture during the 2008 presidential primary and general election season. I assess the media framing of candidates Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin, as well as that of female voters as a group, arguing that the emergence of the pornification frame signals a backlash against the gains women have made in the U.S. political system.

Even as President Donald Trump ramps up the U.S. regime change machinery to “take care of” Venezuela, Syria, Iran, Nicaragua, and Julian Assange’s Ecuador, it very well could be that the U.S. regime change machinery has already been turned inward against him!  The apparent Democrat versus Republican “Public State” display masks a much more sinister (and potentially violent) Deep State clash.  The only question not asked is how far will each of the contending factions go to win?  I believe the Samson Option has been activated and that could very well mean that the contending factions are in a fight with each other to the death.  Meanwhile the U.S. war machine continues to crush countries, creating “Sh*thole” countries in its death march.  Other countries must understand what is happening inside the U.S. in order to better guard against any more hostile or belligerent U.S. actions toward them and to take advantage of any coming imbroglio that could serve as a distraction to their own targeting.  People inside the U.S. must formulate a strategy to make themselves players in this deadly match, so that they might become the arbiters of the U.S. fate.  And of their own.

This contribution discusses the advantages and disadvantages of Cas Mudde's minimalist definition to study populism. It argues that his proposal might facilitate consensus among scholars, yet his conceptualization is an obstacle to grasp the complexity of populism in its diverse manifestations over space and time. Moreover, some underlying normative assumptions limit the reach of his concept to small rightwing populist European parties at the fringes of the political system. The article argues for the necessity to recognize pluralism and hybridism avoiding any reductionism in populism scholarship. Populism cannot be reduced to one of its components, like a moralist ideology. Populism is also a strategy, a political style, and a discursive frame.

This article explores the significance of the theme of “change” in the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election, going beyond its rhetorical use by the candidates or as a way of defining a historic electoral shift (making an “election of change”) to examine how change played a critical role in the political landscape itself. One can locate voters’ desire for change in many existing conditions leading up to the race, but also ideologically and as a force in its own right. Framing of the election as a story reveals that the various actors were increasingly aware of their shifting identities, representations, and agency; thus, change was not just a plot of the story, frequently expressed in terms of populism and popular culture, but a fundamental dynamic behind competing metanarratives and contestations of how the story should be told.

This paper is the English-language version of Robyn Muncy's participation in a forum on U.S political history published in the Italian journal,  Ricerche di storia politica (March 2012). 
The forum was facilitated by editor, Raffaella Baritono.

In February 2016, the Washington Post characterized the presidential primaries as “the most-memed election in U.S. history.” During the election year, meme-ing related to the major candidates became hugely popular and engaged various groups of people who were not ordinarily involved in bipartisan political processes. As brief, to the point, and quickly modifiable visual-textual messages, Internet memes were a particularly apt way to illustrate the most contested hot-button issues that emerged during the 2016 presidential race. This article considers the phenomenon of meme-ing in relation to both the Republican and Democratic campaigns. In particular, it focuses on memes that called attention to the candidates’ contradictory or incongruous statements critiquing their policy positions. The article demonstrates the ways in which memes spoke to the intersection of electoral activism and cultural representations in several ways: they enabled users to rapidly take a stand on and react to developing political events in real time; they provided alternative parallel discourses to mainstream media viewpoints; and they enabled mobilizing voters outside of official political discourses. During the 2016 campaign, meme-ing served as an example of a politico-cultural discourse that exemplified the unusual election year in ways that conventional political analysis alone was not able to capture.

The Pepe the Frog meme and its involvement with the 2016 Trump Presidential campaign highlight the growing significance of Internet memes and their influence on events in the physical world, despite primarily operating in online spaces. Memes are a unique form of digital media due to their exploitability–the ability for an individual or small group to inject a given meme with their own meanings and take advantage of the viral nature of memes to spread their ideas.

While there has been some initial work to categorize and define various meme genres, it remains the case–in both academic and popular discourse–that memes are often conceptualized as a single homogenous group, and that all memes share identical characteristics. My paper highlights the importance of defining separate meme genres and show that understanding memes as a single monolithic group limits the potential for meaningful analysis. Additionally, much of the work defining meme genres has relied on textual analysis of individual memes, or consideration of an individual’s intent in creating new instances of a meme. I argue that meme genres can also be defined by a given meme’s potential for exploitation.

Using case studies of two specific memes–Pepe the Frog and Drake Approves–my paper argues that certain meme genres are more exploitable than others. In just a few minutes, almost anyone can download, remix, and share their own version of a meme. This low barrier of entry enables nearly anyone to redefine and manipulate the meaning of a meme. Because there is no single authority that determines the official definition of a meme, it is possible for a meme to be exploited and its meaning changed drastically. However, the ability of these new meanings to become widespread and accepted depends upon the specific meme genre’s level of exploitability. While Pepe the Frog was redefined by white nationalist groups and designated a hate symbol, the Drake Approves meme has resisted widespread redefinition, even in instances that convey specific ideologies such as misogyny and racism. I conclude with a reflection on the idealistic promise of increased online participation and consider the negative influence memes may have on the otherwise positive effects of increased online participation.

В России непредвзятое отношение к Соединенным Штатам Америки остается большой редкостью. [...] В этой ситуации особый интерес для российского читателя могут представить две книги британских авторов о США, вышедшие в этом году в издательстве «Penguin». Взгляд британцев, работающих в Америке, соответственно, корреспондентами журнала «The Economist» и преподавателем ряда элитных университетов, как и любой другой, не может претендовать на «нейтральность». Но постколониальный британский комплекс «малого партнера» по отношению к США по крайней мере порождает совсем иной взгляд на последнюю сверхдержаву, чем постбиполярные российские фобии. Именно эта разница в перспективах и делает обе книги столь увлекательным чтением.

A  series of analyses of Trump's first year in office, starting with satirical "theories"  rooted in religion, history, diet, and then moving forward to a  much more serious Marxist interpretation of both Trump and the strategies to defeat  his administration

In den USA gibt es keinen Sozialismus. Das weiß alle Welt. Das sagt auch das politische Spektrum. In diesem ist der Sozialist nicht einmal vorgesehen. US-Alltagsverstand und Politikpresse unterschieden hier von rechts bis links traditionell bekanntlich nur „conservatives“ (Rechte/Republikaner), „moderates“ (prinzipienlose Opportunisten oder Ideologen, deren Ideologie es ist, keine Ideologie zu haben), „liberals“ (Link(sliberal)e/Demokraten) und bestenfalls noch „progressives“ (Sozialdemokraten). Sozialisten und Kommunisten haben dagegen entweder etwas mit der untergegangenen und vergessenen Vergangenheit zu tun. Oder mit dem – durch Religions- und und dann politische Bürgerkriege zerrissenen – „Alten Europa“, dem man alle Jahre wieder den verlängerten Rücken retten musste (Weltkrieg Zwo). Mit anderen Worten, d.h. den Worten des US-Hightech-Kapitals im demokratisierten Hausgebrauch: “Das Element wurde nicht gefunden. Das Element befindet sich nicht mehr in C:\Benutzer\Proletariat\Sozialismus\USA. Überprüfen sie den Ort des Elements und wiederholen Sie den Vorgang.” Wie erklärt sich also der Aufstieg von Bernie Sanders in den demokratischen Vorwahlen von 2015/2016?

This essay analyzes the significance of García v. Taft, Texas Voting Rights Case, which was heard in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Corpus Christi Division, Civil Action NO. C-84-230, in 1985. The final decision was made in 1989. The case addresses a gerrymandered, at-large election system in the City of Taft, which was used to exclude African/Mexican-American residents from seeking office. The gerrymandered city boundaries did not include a large portion of the Mexican-American and African-American voting block. To this day, a considerable part of this voting block remains outside city boundaries. But this has become irrelevant as the 1965 Voting Rights Act (VRA) and its 1975, 1982, and 2006 extensions of Section 5, were seriously gutted by the Supreme Court of the U.S. (SCOTUS) in 2013. Using this case, I will describe the events as the author of this paper remembers them from the experience as teenage attending meetings and being involved in this action through the lead plaintiffs (Maria and Miguel García) efforts to include their children in the momentous case. In addition to the authors recollections, the oral histories of Maria García and José Garza (attorney for the Mexican American Legal and Educational Defense Fund (MALDEF)) along with newspaper stories, court documents, literature review and presentation and attendance at the Latinos, the VRA and Political Engagement Conference at UT-Austin in November 2015 to examine local Mexican-American history in Texas through political mobilization, racial gerrymandering, and the at-large election process providing an understanding about the 1989 García v. Taft decision.

Reviews Mark A. Bradley's _A Very Principled Boy: The Life of Duncan Lee, Red Spy and Cold Warrior_ in the  _American Communist History_ (Volume 14, Issue 2), peer-reviewed journal of the academic association Historians of American Communism (HOAC)
ID: 1013716 DOI:10.1080/14743892.2015.1013716

ID: 1013716 DOI:10.1080/14743892.2015.1013716
Reviews Mark A. Bradley's _A Very Principled Boy: The Life of Duncan Lee, Red Spy and Cold Warrior_ in the  _American Communist History_ (Volume 14, Issue 2), peer-reviewed journal of the academic association Historians of American Communism (HOAC)

consensus politics, government by organizational elites from corporations, banking houses, Wall Street brokerage houses, and the selected representatives of political parties that receive their funds, were in their advocacy of government for by and of elites much closer to reactionary and fascist politicians of the past and Donald Trump in the present than they are the Populit movement. When the Nazis came to power in Germany,this was called Machtergreifung, literally a seizure of power which was later translated as " takeover " The term " takeover " was then used very widely in the cold war era to delegitimize all movements of the left, particularly Communist movements, who came to power through revolutions by equating them with reactionaries and fascists who gained power with promises to make their countries " great again, " that is restore past glories Since fascist states and fascism as both ideology and system had lost WWII, leading to a world revolutionary situation, those who had previously appeased fascist states and apologized for their crimes were now comfortable with defining all revolutions for socialism and " Communist takeovers " I thought of that as I watched Trump's " Machtergreifung " of the GOP History does not repeat itself exactly and history is moving very quickly now. Donald Trump has " seized " the Republican presidential nomination and the response of the Republican leaders at the moment is in important ways comparable to the response of conservative governments both before and after Hitler came to power in Germany —that is acceptance and appeasement.

JUST A BRIEF OVERVIEW:This study focuses on the 5 BellWether States in Presidential elections from 2000-2012. I define bellwether states as ones carried by the winner in all four presidential elections, which are Ohio, Nevada, Florida, Colorado, and Virginia.

At the onset of the 1960’s America experienced an era of social freedom, confidence in their government, and economic independence not known to any nation before. Socially the nation had finally emerged from the accusation based McCarthy-red scare era. One historian referred to the 60’s as “the definitive end of the Dark Ages, and the beginning of a more hopeful and democratic period.”  Faith in the incoming John F. Kennedy government was symbolized by a comparison made to the mythical kingdom of Camelot. It was “a magic moment in American history when gallant men danced with beautiful women, when great deeds were done, when artists, writers, and poets met at the White House and the barbarians beyond the walls were held back.”  Economically, the nation was facing a new boom as we were no longer entangled in a costly unwinnable Korean war. In fact “the median family income was $5,620, 30 percent higher in purchasing power than in 1950” providing Americans with real access to prosperity instead of the hollow credit based wealth of the 1920’s.  Publically, it seemed like America was entering a golden age. However the looming threat of a Cold War turning hot was on the minds of the nation’s political leaders. This singular threat of conflict with the Soviet Union and its proxies seemed to poison the American political landscape. During the prosperous decade of the 1960’s, lies, mistrust, and fear plagued America’s executive branch politically. It is difficult to see this prosperous age though such a negative viewpoint since the historical record attempts to glorify the successes of this period. However, by using film that is critical of the politics and individuals involved at the highest levels of our government, we can gain insight into the political undertone that existed and ultimately try to understand how paranoia damaged the nation’s leadership.

When presidential campaigns take place, most of the times some unexpected issues become part of the polit- ical debate. And they can usually be summed up in catchy phrases such as “The U.S. as a Christian nation,” “war on women,” or “Stem Cell Research.”
Now it seems likely that some higher education issues will be hotly discussed among potential pres- idential candidates in the months to come. Obama’s plans for free community college tuition and ranking colleges based on affordability, degree completion and job attainment, as well as the number of guns on cam- puses, will probably be deliberated. Another issue that may surface is public financial support for postsecond- ary institutions.

The concept of ‘vulnerability’ – a descriptor attached to those under a given set of oppressive circumstances – has by now become a familiar part of the political lexicon. This article examines recent academic, cultural, and political for- mulations of ‘vulnerability’, a dexterous category to be sure, and how what I call ‘vulnerability discourse’ has functioned in neoliberal times to describe a concep- tual shift from the state as guarantor of rights to protector of private property. Analysing the terrain of vulnerability discourse sheds light on the dynamics of what Gramsci has termed the ‘integral state’ to elucidate how this discourse works to obscure the innovative ways the state and capital collude to consolidate class power. Through a reading of recent cultural and political phenomena – including academic discussions on precarity as well as the Tea Party movement – I argue that vulnerability discourse is a specifically neoliberal development whose magnitude invigorates both liberal and reactionary political agendas. As such, a critical approach toward vulnerability discourse provides an important explanatory opportunity that reveals the overlapping interests of several political tendencies. Vulnerability discourse puts forward an analysis of the human subject that renders unexplorable the correlation between that subject’s vulnerability and the structures of capital that continue to produce unmet needs. In short, attention to this discourse highlights and articulates new terrains of struggle for materialist scholarship in neoliberal times.

This paper advances the somewhat unphilosophical thesis that “Trump is gross” to draw attention to the need to take matters of taste seriously in politics. I begin by exploring the slipperiness of distinctions between aesthetics, epistemology, and ethics, subsequently suggesting that we may need to pivot toward the aesthetic to understand and respond to the historical moment we inhabit. More specically, I suggest that, in order to understand how Donald Trump was elected President of the United States and in order to stem the damage that preceded this and will ensue from it, we need to understand the power of political taste (and distaste, including disgust) as both a force of resistance and as a force of normalization.

We need to remember and build upon the origins of the Women's March: it was Donald Trump's proud claim about "grabbing them by the pussy" that triggered women's massive outrage and rejection of him as a person and as a presidential candidate. We need to remember this collective insult, how it hits on a visceral level, how sexual assault co-opts sexual power, how this co-optation mirrors women's broader subjugation, and how taking back our sexual power is key to the broad spectrum of actions that can produce women's empowerment.

In this thesis I will consider whether immigration reform is needed in the United States. Immigration has changed profoundly over the last fifty years, and U.S. immigration law needs to reflect these developments. This thesis examines the history of the U.S. labor movement and the May Day protests of 2006, which stood out as an unprecedented mobilization that had not occurred in over 45 years. Undocumented immigrants participated in this mobilization and are continuing to change the labor movement in the United States through advocacy, new techniques, and changing demands.

In the past fifty years, there has been slow progress on immigration reform in the United States. Attempts at comprehensive immigration reform, such as U.S. President Barack Obama’s Executive Order on Immigration, fall short of the needs of the community.

I use the demographic shift argument to examine how female Hispanic immigrants to the United States are vital to the future of the country. Global shifts in the education of girls and women and increasing access to birth control have contributed to declining birth rates worldwide. Immigrants are vital to the future of the United States—not only as active participants in the U.S. economy and society, but also as newfound leaders of the U.S. labor movement.

For the stated reasons, I argue that comprehensive immigration reform is urgently needed in the United States.

The balance of power between the legislative and executive branches of government in the United States has held firm despite the evolution of each branch. Moreover, as the primacy of one branch succumbed to the dominance of the other there remained a constant variable. Partisanship existed since the American founding, however, the importance of Congressional partisanship in the later half of the nineteenth century and rise of the imperial presidency in the twentieth century highlight the formidable challenges of divided government in the United States. The following paper utilizes rational choice theory in political science to explain decision making of American political leaders though inclusion of casual and descriptive examples highlight certain choices within.