A sweeping and innovative study that places young people at the heart of pivotal conflicts, decisions and transformations in American politics. Even though the voting age is 18, children in the United States are both crucial subjects and actors in democratic politics. Young people have been leveraged for important political causes again and again-from the 1963 Birmingham Children's Crusade in which civil rights leaders mobilized thousands of school kids in protest marches to the 2018 "family separation" policy in which Trump officials sacrificed migrant children as bargaining chips in its push for border control. In Democracy's Child, Alison L. Gash and Daniel J. Tichenor focus on the reciprocal relationship between children and politics by placing young people at the heart of pivotal conflicts, decisions, and transformations in American politics. From the March for Our Lives and Black Lives Matter, to Gay Straight Alliances and the Dreamer and Sunrise movements, they show that the prominence of young people as agents of change are unmistakable in contemporary political life. Yet, these movements reflect a long history of youth political mobilization and leadership, including Progressive Era labor organizing and 1960s civil rights and anti-war activism. Gash and Tichenor examine childhood as a potent category that combines with gender/gender identity, race, class, immigration status, or sexual orientation to produce powerful systems of privilege or disadvantage. Further, they argue that children also are crucial subjects of government and adult control, inspiring contention in nearly every realm of public policy, such as education, social welfare, abortion, gun control, immigration, civil rights and liberties, and criminal justice. A sweeping and innovative study, Democracy's Child reveals why the control, leveraging, and agency of young people shapes and defines our political landscape.

This volume features a distinguished, international group of scholars and practitioners who provide a comparative account of ethics regulations across four Western democracies: the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, and Italy. They situate conflict-of-interest regulations within a broader discourse involving democratic theory; identify the structural, political, economic, and cultural factors that have contributed to the development of these regulations over time; and assess the extent to which these efforts have succeeded or failed across and within different branches and systems of government. Collectively, they provide an invaluable survey of the development, function, and impact of conflict-of-interest regimes in public life.

In 1993 the nation exploded into anti-same sex marriage fervor when the Hawaii Supreme Court issued its decision to support marriage equality for gay and lesbian couples. Opponents feared that all children, but especially those raised by lesbian or gay couples, would be harmed by the possibility of same-sex marriage-and warned of the consequences for society at large. Congress swiftly enacted the Defense of Marriage Act-defining marriage as between a man and a woman-and many states followed suit. By 2006 much of the United States was cloaked in constitutional amendments barring same-sex marriage. Almost a decade before the Hawaii court issued their decision, however, several courts in several states had granted gay and lesbian couples co-parenting status-permitting each individual in the couple to be legally recognized as joint parents over their children. By 2006, courts in over half the states had issued decisions supporting gay and lesbian co-parenting-with far less public aggression than on the marriage front. What accounts for the stark difference in reactions to two contemporaneous same-sex family policy fights? This book argues that advocacy visibility has played a significant role in determining whether advocacy efforts become mired in conflict or bypass hostile backlash politics. Same-sex parenting advocates are not alone in crafting low-visibility advocacy strategies to ward off opposition efforts. Those who operate, reside in, and advocate for group homes serving individuals with disabilities have also used below-the-radar strategies to diminish the damage cause by NIMBY (Not in my back yard) responses to their requests to move into single-family neighborhoods. Property owners have resorted to slander, subterfuge, and even arson to discourage group homes from locating in their neighborhoods, and, for some advocates, secrecy provides the best elixir. Together these stories provide a glimpse of the prophylactic and palliative potential of low-visibility advocacy.