50 research outputs found
#Nationalism: the ethno-nationalist populism of Donald Trumpâs Twitter communication
In this article, we explore the ethno-nationalist populism of Donald Trumpâs Twitter communication during the 2016 presidential campaign. We draw on insights from ethno-symbolism â a perspective within nationalism studies â to analyse all 5,515 tweets sent by Trump during the campaign. We find that ethno-nationalist and populist themes were by far the most important component of Trumpâs tweets, and that these themes built upon long-standing myths and symbols of an ethnic conception of American identity. In sum, Trumpâs tweets depicted a virtuous white majority being threatened by several groups of immoral outsiders, who were identified by their foreignness, their religion, and their self-interestedness. The struggle against these groups was framed as a mission to restore America to a mythical golden age â to âMake America Great Again.
Na sombra do VietnĂŁ: o nacionalismo liberal e o problema da guerra
Este artigo discute como um grupo de cineastas e historiadores no PĂłs-VietnĂŁ, buscando recuperar o nacionalismo liberal, procurou celebrar a figura do soldado cidadĂŁo no passado dos EUA. Esses esforços foram aclamados e se popularizaram, mas falharam em gerar uma crĂtica das forças armadas profissionalizadas e da polĂtica externa aventureira que esses militares ajudaram a viabilizar
Liberty, Liberalism, Libertarianism and Community Responsibility
Le professeur Gary Gerstle se propose de conduire une réflexion sur l'importance du concept de liberté, conjointement à la confusion de termes tels que « liberalism », « libertarianism », « civil liberties » et « conservatism ». La puissance évocative du terme dit-il est indéniable : voir les paroles de Philip Henry « Give me liberty or give me death » ; ou encore les paroles de l'hymne : « My country t'is of thee/sweet land of liberty ». Le meilleur symbole en étant d'ailleurs la Statue de l..
Recommended from our members
The Rise and Fall (?) of America's Neoliberal Order
This paper argues that the last eighty years of American politics can be understood in terms of the rise and fall of two political orders. The first political order grew out of the New Deal, dominating political life from the 1930s to the 1970s. The history of this order (the New Deal Order) is now well known. The other order, best understood as âneoliberalâ in its politics, emerged from the economic and political crises of the 1970s. This paper is one of the first to elucidate the political relationships, ideological character and moral perspective that were central to this neoliberal order's rise and triumph. The paper's narrative unfolds in three acts: the first chronicles the 1980s rise of Ronald Reagan and the laissez-faire Republican party he forced into being; the second shows how the collapse of communism in the late 1980s and early 1990s accelerated the globalization of capitalism and elevated neoliberalism's prestige; and the third reveals how a Democratic president, Bill Clinton, facilitated his party's capitulation to neoliberal imperatives. Political orders encourage such capitulation, the paper argues, by universalizing their own ideological principles and making alternative ideologies seem marginal and unworkable. A coda shows how the Great Recession of 2008 fractured America's neoliberal order, diminishing its authority and creating a space in which different kinds of politics, including the right-wing populism of Donald Trump and the left-wing populism of Bernie Sanders, could flourish
Recommended from our members
The Civil War and Statebuilding: A Reconsideration
A favored way of interpreting American political development in the US is to stress the revolutionary effects of the Civil War on the American nation and its state. In this view, the defeat of the Confederacy interred statesâ rights and concentrated power in the central government to an unprecedented degree. This central state, this âYankee Leviathan,â in the words of Richard Bensel, first focused on creating a legal and political environment in which capitalism could flourish. In the hands of the Populists and Progressives, this same central state then developed the political resolve and administrative capacity to remedy the multiple ills that an unbounded capitalism had generated. By the time of the New Deal, big government, conceived in the tradition of European social democracy, had tamed big capitalism.
What this account leaves out is how deep remained the commitment in the North across the Civil War years to keep intact the government that the Constitution had ordained. Many of the new powers assumed by the federal government during that time were justified by war emergency and thus understood to be legitimate only so long as wartime lasted. Even the profound movement during the Radical Republican era to move beyond circumstances of emergency and change the conception of governance permanently via constitutional amendment changed the balance of power between the states and the central government less than is commonly thought. The Civil War and Reconstruction may therefore have been less of a pivot in the history of the American state than many believe them to have been.Non
LâAmĂ©rique rencontre les immigrants : passĂ©, prĂ©sent, futur
Afin dâĂ©clairer les rĂ©cents dĂ©bats autour de la gestion des flux migratoires vers les Ătats-Unis, Gary Gerstle propose une interprĂ©tation de lâhistoire des politiques de lâimmigration amĂ©ricaine sur la longue durĂ©e. Le « pacte » rĂ©volutionnaire Ă lâorigine de la nation a fait des Ătats-Unis une terre dâimmigration ouverte aux peuples du monde â bien quâexcluant dâemblĂ©e une partie de sa propre population selon des critĂšres raciaux. Les AmĂ©ricains, par principe autant quâen raison de considĂ©rations pratiques, lui sont restĂ©s fidĂšles durant le premier siĂšcle de leur histoire (1776-1882), avant dâadopter le comportement des nations comparables et de cĂ©der Ă une logique restrictionniste (1882 Ă nos jours). Cette remarquable stabilitĂ© des politiques de lâimmigration sâexplique par la grande difficultĂ© Ă mener toute rĂ©forme Ă son terme, quâelle prĂŽne la limitation ou lâouverture : tout changement dâenvergure nĂ©cessite la formation de coalitions politiques entre des groupes habituellement en dĂ©saccord. Câest Ă lâaulne de cette configuration structurellement dĂ©favorable quâil faut comprendre les blocages de la pĂ©riode rĂ©cente. Lâauteur achĂšve sa rĂ©flexion en esquissant ce que devrait ĂȘtre, sâil se rĂ©vĂ©lait possible pour lâadministration Obama de sâengager sur ce terrain, une approche progressiste de la rĂ©forme en la matiĂšre