|
Showing 1 - 4 of
4 matches in All Departments
There exists considerable disagreement about whether the United
States president has a direct and measurable influence over the
economy. The analysis presented in Economic Actors, Economic
Behaviors, and Presidential Leadership suggests that while the
presidents have increased their rhetoric regarding the economy,
they have not had much success in shaping it. Despite attempts to
tailor rhetoric to influence specific actors, the presidents are
incredibly ineffective. Considering this research, Arthur argues
that the president s decision to address the economy so often must
stem from a symbolic placation or institutional necessity that is
intended to comfort constituencies or somehow garner electoral
advocacy from the party s base. No other viable explanation exists
given the lack of results presidents obtain from discussing the
economy and their persistent determination to do so. This
discrepancy suggests that presidential rhetoric on the economy is,
at best, a tool used to appear concerned about the economy to
everyone and toeing the party-line to their base. Moreover, it
allows them to present the facade to their constituents that they
are in control of a crucial facet of American life."
This book offers a broad interdisciplinary approach to the changes
in the U.S. immigration debate before and after 9/11. A nation's
reaction to foreigners has as much to do with sociology as it does
with political science, economics and psychology. Without drawing
on this knowledge, our understanding of the immigration debate
remains mundane, partial, and imperfect. Therefore, our story
accounts for multiple factors, including culture and politics,
power, organizations, social psychological processes, and political
change. Examining this relationship in the contemporary context
requires a lengthy voyage across academic disciplines, a synthesis
of seemingly contradictory assumptions, and a grasp of research
traditions so vast and confusing that an accurate rendering may
seem implausible. And yet, to tell the story of the immigration
debate in the age of terrorism, polarization, and Trump in any
other way is to tell it in part. The immigration debate in the
United States has always been about openness. Two questions in
particular-how open should the door be and what type of immigrant
should walk through it-have characterized policy disputes for well
over a century. In the current debate, expansionists want to see
more legal immigrants in the U.S. and greater tolerance, if not
respect, for immigrants. Restrictionists favor lower levels of
immigration, stronger borders, and tighter law enforcement measures
to stop the stream of 'illegal' migration and alleged crime. The
aim of this book is to describe how these opposing views
materialized in the news media, political rhetoric, and,
ultimately, in policy. Much of our argument rests on the idea that
history matters, that the dominant narrative about immigration is
in constant flux, and that the 'winner' of the immigration debate
is determined by a vector of contextual elements: the joint impact
of current events, enduring traditions, and political-economic
forces. Our approach to the immigration debate avoids deterministic
claims and grand-scale projections. Although we argue with
conviction that a climate of fear played an important role in
shaping the debate, the fear itself and its effects on social
attitudes and public policy were neither inevitable nor necessarily
long lasting.
There is considerable disagreement about whether the U.S. president
has a direct and measurable influence over the economy. The
analysis presented in Economic Actors, Economic Behaviors, and
Presidential Leadership: The Constrained Effects of Rhetoric
suggests that while presidents have increased their rhetoric
regarding the economy, they have not had much success in shaping
it. Considering this research, Arthur argues that the president's
decision to address the economy so often must stem from a symbolic
placation or institutional necessity that is intended to comfort
constituencies or somehow garner electoral advocacy from the
party's base. No other viable explanation exists given the lack of
results presidents obtain from discussing the economy and their
persistent determination to do so. This discrepancy suggests that
presidential rhetoric on the economy is, at best, a tool used to
appear concerned to everyone and toe the party-line to their base.
Arthur presents an overview of economic rhetoric from the
presidential office that will be of interest to scholars of the
economy and political communication.
This book offers a broad interdisciplinary approach to the changes
in the U.S. immigration debate before and after 9/11. A nation's
reaction to foreigners has as much to do with sociology as it does
with political science, economics and psychology. Without drawing
on this knowledge, our understanding of the immigration debate
remains mundane, partial, and imperfect. Therefore, our story
accounts for multiple factors, including culture and politics,
power, organizations, social psychological processes, and political
change. Examining this relationship in the contemporary context
requires a lengthy voyage across academic disciplines, a synthesis
of seemingly contradictory assumptions, and a grasp of research
traditions so vast and confusing that an accurate rendering may
seem implausible. And yet, to tell the story of the immigration
debate in the age of terrorism, polarization, and Trump in any
other way is to tell it in part. The immigration debate in the
United States has always been about openness. Two questions in
particular-how open should the door be and what type of immigrant
should walk through it-have characterized policy disputes for well
over a century. In the current debate, expansionists want to see
more legal immigrants in the U.S. and greater tolerance, if not
respect, for immigrants. Restrictionists favor lower levels of
immigration, stronger borders, and tighter law enforcement measures
to stop the stream of 'illegal' migration and alleged crime. The
aim of this book is to describe how these opposing views
materialized in the news media, political rhetoric, and,
ultimately, in policy. Much of our argument rests on the idea that
history matters, that the dominant narrative about immigration is
in constant flux, and that the 'winner' of the immigration debate
is determined by a vector of contextual elements: the joint impact
of current events, enduring traditions, and political-economic
forces. Our approach to the immigration debate avoids deterministic
claims and grand-scale projections. Although we argue with
conviction that a climate of fear played an important role in
shaping the debate, the fear itself and its effects on social
attitudes and public policy were neither inevitable nor necessarily
long lasting.
|
You may like...
Tenet
John David Washington, Robert Pattinson
Blu-ray disc
(1)
R54
Discovery Miles 540
|