Promotions - Choice's Outstanding Academic Titles 2020 -

Shiell (philosophy, Univ. of Wisconsin, Stout) is also the author of Campus Hate Speech on Trial (CH, Nov'98, 36-1872). Whereas in that work he examined campus speech codes regulating hate speech, in the present book he looks more broadly at the importance of free speech in advancing the cause of racial equality in the US. Although many scholars have argued that freedom of expression and racial equality are in conflict and that free speech should be curtailed, Shiell argues that the two are not in fundamental conflict and that in fact a vigorous exercise of free speech by civil rights advocates will advance their cause. The book covers four main topics: the era of American apartheid when African Americans and others were denied basic civil rights, including speech; the landmark case of Herndon v. Lowry (1937), the first time the US Supreme Court upheld a black man's free speech rights; the post-Herndon v. Lowry Civil Rights Movement and how freedom of speech assisted in that cause; and the fundamental alliance of speech and equality--the last the ultimate argument of the book. This thoroughly documented study does an excellent job of combining philosophy, law, history, and political science.Summing Up: Highly recommended. Lower-division undergraduates through faculty.

Yost (philosophy, Providence College) has written a brilliant analysis of philosophical arguments for and against the death penalty. Surveying hundreds of scholarly articles and works about capital punishment, the author carefully documents the inadequacies of pro-death penalty reasoning used by philosophers from Immanuel Kant to the present. Yost covers political theories, philosophical arguments, and legal justifications, surveying issues such as deterrence, irrevocability, cost/benefit balance, inadequacy of attorneys, and the inherent fallibility of the American criminal justice system. Most important, he identifies a serious paradigm shift toward abolition of the death penalty based on three notions: the justice system inevitably makes mistakes; William Blackstone's axiom (discussed in chapter 4) that it is better that ten guilty defendants escape rather than one innocent person suffer; and over-punishing those charged with criminal acts is worse than under-punishing them. The modern movement to abolish capital punishment seems destined to prevail as represented by the 2020 Colorado vote to abolish it, leaving fewer than 30 states still authorizing this rarely used punishment. This is a seminal, comprehensive treatment of the capital punishment.Summing Up: Essential. Upper-division undergraduates through faculty and professionals.

Thompson (political philosophy, Clemsen Univ.) offers one of the most compelling explorations of the Declaration of Independence published to date. This is an intellectual, political, and moral history of the Declaration, which Thomas Jefferson described as "an expression of the American mind" (quoted on p. 8). Thompson advances a refreshing and powerful argument for the centrality of ideals in the American Revolution: this was a "new method of thinking," as the radical Thomas Paine described it (quoted on p. 2). Thompson views the Declaration as a consequence of Americans' social and political evolution prior to 1776 and as a cause of the American Revolution, which infused it with libertarian, egalitarian, anti-slavery, anti-colonial, and anti-monarchical ideals. The author provides a deep exploration of each of the key phrases of the document--for example, "laws of nature," "created equal," "self-evident [truths]"--explaining the intellectual and philosophical origins of those concepts in earlier writers and political theorists such as John Locke. Thompson situates Jefferson's masterpiece in a multitude of other 18th-century writings, to demonstrate the revolutionaries' broader intellectual consensus. He emphasizes the fact that the revolutionaries' principles were not relativistic or merely rhetorical but instead "absolute, certain, universal, permanent, and immutable" truths that shaped the modern world (p. 79).Summing Up: Essential. Lower-division undergraduates through faculty; general readers.

Within three months of taking office, Donald Trump kept his promise to supporters by appointing conservative Neil Gorsuch to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court. A year later, Trump nominated conservative Brett Kavanaugh to replace retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy. After a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing and a party-line vote in the Senate, Kavanaugh was confirmed. His appointment insured that there will be a conservative balance of five justices for years. Stern (who covers the courts and the law for Slate) describes the impact that a conservative majority could have on cases before the Supreme Court. In making his argument, Stern reviews and comments on nine important cases that were heard in the 2018-19 session. He explains why Chief Justice John Roberts, a conservative, will sometimes break with the conservative majority and move toward the Left. Stern also suggests that precedents may be wiped out. Including an introduction, an epilogue, and biographies of current and recently retired justices, this is a major and important work.Summing Up: Highly recommended. Upper-division undergraduates through faculty and professionals.

An acclaimed journalist, Bernstein is not the first author seeking to untangle and spotlight Donald Trump's business dealings, but she has found a new point of entry by focusing on the Trump and Kushner families as extreme examples of playing the system to their material advantage. In this sprawling, muckraking book, Bernstein walks readers through the two families' origin stories in the US, highlighting their nefarious tactics. She demonstrates that frivolous lawsuits, campaign contributions, and more direct incentives to persuade government officials to bend rules to their designs was standard practice from one generation to the next, as was stiffing contractors and even their own attorneys. In the White House, Jared Kushner has sought, often successfully, to circumvent traditional lines of authority by exploiting his son-in-law status. Donald Trump's modus operandi as a hyperbolic salesman, master of the campaign donation, and political "disrupter" is already well known, though the sheer volume of questionable deals and outright lying as recounted here is dizzying. This well-researched book cannot be the last word on the nexus of money and power in Trump's world, but no previous book has covered the ground so comprehensively.Summing Up: Highly recommended. General readers.

Schrag's book is a must read for anyone interested in the legal and political history of asylum seekers, from the Reagan to the Trump administrations. The book is arranged chronologically, and in the first three chapters Schrag (public interest law, Georgetown Univ.) introduces the 1985 Flores Settlement, which set detention standards for unaccompanied children and allowed for conditions for their release to a relative or sponsor and not necessarily to their biological parent. The chapters that follow focus on congressional actions; the transfer of the care of children in custody from INS to the Office of Refugee Resettlement; amendments to immigration laws; and establishment of the family detention facilities. They also trace the legal challenges couched in the premise that "there is simply no justification for imprisoning children" (p. 93). Embedded throughout are poignant and detailed stories of the struggle of individual activists, lawyers, immigration advocates, and judges. In the final chapter Schrag surveys the Trump Administration's policies on detention of migrant children, policies that have led to family separation and babies in jails. The author concludes with recommendations for humanitarian reform in processing migrant families (p. 281). The bibliography includes legal cases, congressional records, and media sources.Summing Up: Essential. All readers.

This is a timely resource on Trump's immigration policies, which at this writing are in the news. Wadhia's intent is to describe and advocate, but the latter is a minor note until the last chapter. In the book's seven chapters Wadhia (law, Penn State) explains the range of discretion that can be exercised in immigration enforcement, the Trump travel bans and shift in enforcement priorities, deferred action policies, types of speedy deportation, and refugee policy. Wadhia's explanations of rules are clear, and his citations of statutes, regulations, and executive branch documents will help readers find the original sources easily. Wadhia also draws on 21 interviews with former government officials, immigration attorneys, and individuals directly affected by the changes in immigration policy, but the interviews are more a source of commentary and examples rather than the central data source. Very accessibly written, the book will be a great resource for those with little concrete knowledge of immigration issues in the Trump era. Minimal use of jargon makes the book valuable to a very wide audience, including readers across the entire spectrum of higher education.Summing Up: Essential. All readers.

Although Bella Abzug (1920-98) served just three terms in Congress, her brashness as an activist and legislator made her stand out. As related in this absorbing biography, Abzug's life opens windows into such matters as McCarthyism, the women's movement of the 1960s and 1970s, antiwar politics, privacy, and the changing orientation of the Democratic Party after 1968. Zarnow (history, Univ. of Houston) leaves no stone unturned in discussing Abzug's upbringing, her activism on behalf of peace and social justice, her emergence as a feminist icon, and her brief but impactful political career. Zarnow makes a strong case for Abzug's significance, particularly her success in building Women Strike for Peace into a formidable lobby and her head-butting with Richard Nixon, the surveillance state, and executive privilege. Zarnow does not ignore her subject's flaws, among them sharp elbows and a me-first mentality. Looked at in perspective, Abzug represents a "rebellious reform" (p. 6) that meshed with the spirit of the times. She was a zestful character, floppy hats and all, a happy warrior for progressive causes across a broad front. A "stubborn idealist " (p. 307), Abzug never abandoned her core beliefs, and she ended her life journey as a champion of global women's rights.Summing Up: Highly recommended. Lower-division undergraduates through faculty.

The essays presented here are of uniformly high quality, and they maintain a focus on specific elements of Judith Shklar's contribution to 20th-century liberalism. Shklar (1928-92) is increasingly recognized as one of the most important political thinkers of the 20th century, and this book will add to her reputation. Most of the contributors focus on Shklar's essay "The Liberalism of Fear," in which she links liberalism with the prevention of cruelty. Many of the essays place Shklar in historical context, particularly in showing how her thought represented a departure in some ways from the preceding generation of such liberal thinkers as Isaiah Berlin. The contributors also make the case that Shklar's Americanness was relevant for her thinking. For one thing, she did not believe that Berlin's characterizations of positive and negative liberty really make sense for Americans. The idea of rights, the foundation of American liberalism, incorporated both. More importantly, Shklar incorporated the American experience of race into her liberalism. This book makes a significant contribution to the growing secondary literature on Shklar and on the development of 20th-century political theory.Summing Up: Highly recommended. Upper-division undergraduates through faculty.

Border Wars traces Donald Trump's anti-immigrant stance, which has led to deportations, family separation, and denial of asylum. As Washington correspondents for the New York Times, Davis and Shear had access to sources intimately familiar with anti-immigrant conversations involving aides, advisers, and staffers who work for Trump. The actions of Stephen Miller, Kirstjen Nielsen, Mike Pompeo, Mike Pence, and Steve Bannon are woven into the text, as are observations of career federal government employees and vivid details of meetings, calls, and conversations with staffers in the Trump administration regarding slashing the number of refugees allowed into the US, the type of construction materials used to build the border wall, the future of DACA, and the Muslim travel ban. Davis and Shear describe disagreements and feuds among staffers close to Trump, and they shed light on how immigration decisions are made by the administration. They also culled material from other sources, including journalistic accounts and books, and these are mentioned in the book's last chapter. Bibliographical references serve as a bibliography. This well-written book is accessible, engaging, and full of details pertaining to immigration policies.Summing Up: Highly recommended. Lower- and upper-division undergraduates; professionals; general readers.

Farrier (political science, Univ. of Louisville) looks at how the federal courts have eroded congressional power, both by the decisions they hand down and by the litigation they view as political. When Congress has attempted to regain its power, it is often thwarted by the judiciary. Institutionalists of both political parties lament what this means for the constitutional order. One cannot help but wonder about the impact, now and in the future, of established legislators who put their careers above country and inexperienced members who have little historical perspective. Reelection has always been a paramount concern, as David Mayhew argued forcefully in his seminal work Congress: The Electoral Connection (CH, Feb'75). Nonetheless, most congresspeople have not been single-minded in their blind ambition (with all due respect to John Dean). Farrier's work could not be more relevant than it is in the present politically charged environment--an environment in which tribalism rules and people believe their own "facts." Required reading for everyone who cares about democracy in the US.Summing Up: Essential. Upper-division undergraduates through faculty and professionals; general readers.

This is a swashbuckling and informative critique of legal education. Barton (law, Univ. of Tennessee) has written previously on the legal profession, and in this volume, he uses numerous charts and graphs to describe how legal education has become increasingly costly even as average enrollments and LSAT scores have declined and job placement and bar exam passage rates for many schools remain mediocre. Looking at the acknowledged "Trump bump" in law school applications, Barton expresses the fear that this phenomenon may allow law schools to replicate past mistakes rather than institute needed reforms. Barton is critical of the steep rise in law school tuition, disappointed at the emphasis on producing academic scholarship at the expense of teaching actual legal skills, skeptical about allowing applicants to substitute the GRE for the LSAT, critical of the role of rankings by U.S. News and World Report, and disappointed that for-profit law schools have been among the most predatory. He faults both American Bar Association accreditation policies and overly generous federal loans, and he charges that the so-called top 14 schools too often follow trends rather than bucking them. Indispensable for law school personnel and for students contemplating attending law school.Summing Up: Essential. Upper-division undergraduates through faculty and professionals.

Starting from the premise that more women could and should run for political office, this collection of essays makes a wide-ranging attempt to understand the role, ambition, and strategies of potential female candidates. Focusing largely on the US context, the more than three-dozen scholarly and professional contributors use a wide variety of impressionistic and empirical approaches to help explain why women run, or avoid running, for office. Considerable attention is given to strategies for increasing the number of female candidates, in particular the role of parties and non-profits in serving as training grounds for women. Going well beyond conventional wisdom about such matters as differential ability to raise funds, the analyses provide a nuanced set of arguments about context, strategies, and resources. With references to the elections of 2016 and 2018 and the primaries of 2020, the discussion takes on a contemporary cast. Despite the relative success of Democratic women, the book's treatment is evenhanded, looking at strategies and behavior of both Republicans and Democrats. This collection will be an excellent resource for courses on women and electoral politics.Summing Up: Highly recommended. Upper-division undergraduates through faculty; professionals.

Cohen (Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, Syracuse Univ.) provides a masterful examination of how white nationalists and nativists shaped and informed the evolution of US immigration policy, and in so doing broke the immigration system. In chapter 1, "Enforcement Gone Rogue," Cohen describes how two agencies--Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)--have flouted the law; amassed enormous budgets and power, with little oversight or accountability; and trampled on the civil rights of citizens with aggressive and brutal enforcement activities. Subsequent chapters look at the legislative history of immigration laws, including the National Origins Act, the Registry Act of 1929, and the 1965 Hart-Celler Immigration and Nationality Act, the last of which remains the framework for today's immigration system. In the concluding chapter, the author makes three recommendations for bringing about positive change in how the US deals with immigration and citizenship and treats immigrants as future citizens: specifically, updating the registry system, decriminalizing the immigration process, and reorganizing the immigration agency. Throughout Cohen drives home the point that the US's present out-of-control immigration enforcement regime, fueled by nativist sentiments, is eroding the rights of both citizens of the US and noncitizens and undermining democracy. Engaging, well documented, and accessible, this book is a must read.Summing Up: Essential. All readers.

The seminal case on libel law in the US is New York Times v. Sullivan (1964), and much has been written about the decision in the decades since it was handed down. Edmondson (E. W. Scripps School of Journalism, Ohio Univ.) uses the case as a departure point for a discussion of cases filed by public officials trying to silence civil rights activists. Building on Anthony Lewis's pivotal Make No Law: The Sullivan Case and the First Amendment (CH, Dec'91, 29-2375), Edmondson examines dozens of cases of attempted harassment or annoyance of those who would challenge powerful racists and entrenched southern segregationists. Edmondson demonstrates that these strategic lawsuits against public participation (know as SLAPP) continued for decades beyond the Sullivan decision. In the epilogue, she shows that the same intimidation tactics have been used recently by others, including President Donald Trump, to silence critics. This book provides important insights into efforts to use the legal system as a weapon against journalists and civil rights advocates. It will be invaluable to those researching civil rights as well as those interested in libel and free expression.Summing Up: Essential. All readers.

Kennedy scholars and media and communications specialists will find this book must reading. Murphy (communication, Univ. of Illinois) provides an intellectual framework for Kennedy's pre-presidential years and his abbreviated tenure in the White House. Born into wealth and privilege, Kennedy possessed resources and advantages that other candidates lacked or never developed. In Murphy's book, the "best and the brightest" refers not to Kennedy's talented and dynamic cabinet but to aides and advisors like speechwriter and confidant Theodore Sorenson (a carryover from JFK's Senate staff) and Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. Whereas other scholars have debated who should get credit for iconic lines or passages of the 35th president's speeches, Murphy is content to call the collective efforts the "Kennedy brand." Kennedy, of course, came of age when television and politics were coming together. It is likely that the cool medium served primarily as an accelerant to Kennedy's predisposition for relying on speeches to address the issue of the moment, whether on the campaign trail, in a televised debate, or in one of his frequent press conferences or addresses.Summing Up: Highly recommended. Upper-division undergraduates; graduate students.

In this timely study Collingwood (Univ. of California, Riverside) and Gonzalez O'Brien (San Diego State Univ.) trace the debate over sanctuary cities, starting in the 1980s. The first local sanctuary laws and policies that provided a buffer between local authorities protecting immigrants and federal officials bent on detaining them attracted scant national attention. In recent years public visibility of sanctuary cities has increased dramatically thanks to political maneuvering. Trump and congressional Republicans used the 2015 shooting of Kathryn Steinle by an undocumented immigrant (who was subsequently deemed innocent) to exploit the sanctuary issue, and that chain of events is the basis of this book. Drawing on a wide variety of data--media coverage of the shooting, public opinion, crime figures, and policy making--the authors delineate the dissonance between popular perceptions and verifiable information that has come to define the sanctuary question. Relying on highly charged anecdotal information, conservatives turned sanctuary into a potent political weapon. Collingwood and Gonzalez O'Brien provide considerable evidence to support the claim that influential media and political positioning have distorted the facts to such a degree that finding an efficacious policy outcome is virtually impossible without major demographic and electoral change. Very well organized and presented, this study will be useful to both scholars and policy makers.Summing Up: Highly recommended. Upper-division undergraduates through faculty and professionals; general readers.

This timely, significant book covers how social forces form the choices that African Americans make in modern politics. Overwhelmingly, White (Duke Univ.) and Laird (Bowdoin College) argue that the steadfast support for Democrats is, at bottom, a racialized political choice, whereby Republican candidates are a repulsive option for the majority of African American voters. This richly sophisticated theoretical analysis is a must read for anyone interested in why African Americans vote the way they do. Whether preference is based on personal interest or is community focused, the social fact remains that about 90 percent of African Americans are obstinately Democratic in their voting behavior. Interestingly, evidence is given that there is a growing conservatism among African Americans. However, their partisan voting pattern reveals an opposition to the values and an overall dislike of Republican politics. White and Laird should be commended for providing such a useful, nuanced insight into why such cohesion in political behavior has a social and psychological component related to African Americans' collective experience in the US. Indeed, this book will probably form a theoretical foundation in political science and beyond in the coming years.Summing Up: Essential. All levels.

In his 1936 Democratic presidential nomination acceptance speech, Franklin Roosevelt stated that his opponents "are unanimous in their hate for me--and I welcome their hatred," making it clear that appeals to the electorate's emotions are not the exclusive province of demagogues. The 2016 presidential election prompted a renewed interest in mainstream politicians' efforts to trigger voters' emotions. In this textured study, Phoenix (Univ. of California, Irvine) explores how politicians' appeals to emotions can change depending on the racial composition of the audience they are addressing. Phoenix identifies an unfortunate dynamic in American politics in which Democratic politicians, in particular, hesitate to appeal to African Americans' justified anger at a political system that has ignored or acted contrary to their interests, while African Americans are reluctant to express their frustration because of the pernicious cultural caricatures of African American anger. This dynamic creates an "anger gap," one that finds African Americans choosing resignation over mobilization, with unfortunate consequences for their voter turnout vis-a-vis that of whites. This is a rare readable, data-driven study, one that all students of American political behavior should consume.Summing Up: Highly recommended. Upper-division undergraduates through faculty.

It is unusual for a collection of academic essays to flow as though written by a single author or pair of authors. The Blue Wave, edited by Larry Sabato and Kyle Kondik, does so. Any political scientist prepping courses on elections for next year, media pundits wanting to sound more knowledgeable, or political consultants seeking to give clients good advice must read this book. Its initial chapters provide an excellent, detailed retelling of the 2018 election. It moves on to "slice and dice" the role of different demographic constituencies in the outcome of the election. Lastly, the book does two things. First, it sets up how, if what was observed as widespread group behavior continues through 2020, the 2020 presidential election may be impacted. Second, it defines a wave election while simultaneously determining whether the 2018 election was a wave. Wave or not, the 2018 election was certainly significant, and Sabato and Kondik have assembled knowledgeable experts who write well and detail the election in a compelling way.Summing Up: Essential. Upper-division undergraduates through faculty.

To say that this work is comprehensive would be an understatement, because in fact it takes a very deep dive into conscientiousness and the justices of the US Supreme Court. The result is a tome that upsets traditional political scientific theories that justices are either single-minded policy makers or strategic thinkers using their positions to ensure their desired policy choices. Black (Michigan State Univ.) and his fellow authors, all scholars of government and political science, suggest that factors such as law, reputation, and personality affect the actions of the justices. The authors begin quite logically with a review of the evolution of political science scholarship on judicial behavior and then thoroughly discuss their methodological approach. In subsequent chapters they apply their approach to the concerns and actions of justices, for example selection of cases (agenda setting); legal briefs and oral arguments; opinion assignment, bargaining, and content; treatment of precedent; and so on. This pathbreaking book should be read by anyone interested in the workings of the Supreme Court and its justices.Summing Up: Essential. Upper-division undergraduates through faculty; professionals.

This superb book explains how understandings of the US Constitution evolved to support federal conservation efforts from the Civil War through the 1920s. The legal conception of nature transitioned from promoting the immediate use of nature as "a collection of commodities" to a more modern, long-term, scientific management of "complex, interdependent ecosystems" (p. 255). These changes were driven by unprecedented environmental changes, growing concern about environmental destruction, and rapidly expanding scientific understanding of ecosystem interconnections, including the influential expertise of federal agencies, such as the Department of Agriculture. Offering a clear, readable, step-by-step analysis, Smith (environmental studies and political science, Carleton College) carefully describes the judicial relaxation of antebellum constrictions on public management of the environment. Through the Gilded Age and the Progressive Era, courts became more accepting of expanded state environmental authority. Judges allowed more federal power over federal landholdings in the West and in conserving eastern forests. Judges also found validation for cities trying to alleviate pollution and zone urban activities. Including an excellent bibliography and a listing of relevant court cases, this book will be invaluable for those interested in environmental history and policy and public law.Summing Up: Essential. Upper-division undergraduates through faculty.

The Great Broadening examines the years from the late 1950s to the mid-1970s, a period when national policy-making on the part of the US federal government saw significant growth. Many scholars have scrutinized this expansion into areas previously belonging to state and local governments, or even civil society, but Whyman (Duke Univ.) and Jones and Theriault (both, Univ. of Texas, Austin) posit a new hypothesis. They argue that the underlying social movements of the time actually did more than change political party systems and public opinion at large. To make this claim the authors analyzed data from the University of Texas's Policy Agendas Project, data that provides as a compelling narrative about federal expansion into health care, civil rights, and gender-related policies. Those who supported these policy areas became advocates on the government's behalf, but those resistant to policy change worked to curb further expansions. Though this reviewer would have welcomed more discussion of the latter, the authors' quantitative argument is strong, particularly in comparison with more qualitative narratives. Probably the best book this reviewer has read in the past five years, this is a must read for those interested in Congress, federal spending, public policy, and administrative bureaucracy. It challenges long-held beliefs and greatly expands the conversation.Summing Up: Essential. Lower-division undergraduates through faculty and professionals; general readers.

A plethora of books have been published about Trump's presidency. Thanks to Knott (national security affairs, United States Naval War College) readers finally have a book that places the Trump Administration in historical context. Knott's basic premise is that presidential power has gradually shifted away from its constitutional foundations and come to derive from popular consent. This change has allowed the presidency to slip into demagoguery and divided US polity into hostile, partisan camps. Knott writes that limited republican presidency envisioned by the framers of the Constitution began its metamorphosis into an office pandering to public opinion during the presidencies of Thomas Jefferson (1801-9) and Andrew Jackson (1829-37). The precipitous decline of the framers' presidency continued with Wilson, the Roosevelts, Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon. It has reached a historical low during Trump's presidency. The popularized presidency is not the unifying, dignified, magnanimous office of Washington and Lincoln. Instead, the modern presidency resorts to divisive positions based on conspiracy theories, falsehoods, disparagement of minorities, and unattainable promises to win elections and court the support of its electoral base. The popularized presidency cannot perform the intended constitutional purpose of the presidency--unifying the nation. Knott's thesis is thought provoking, making the book a must read for students of the presidency.Summing Up: Essential. Lower-division undergraduates through faculty and professionals; general readers.

Contrary to prevailing opinion, American Jews are not as monolithic in their political thinking as assumed, though according to Weisberg (Ohio State Univ.), they have displayed remarkable "partisan stability" (p. 1) for nearly five decades. He attributes this to their self-interest, personal values, and minority consciousness, all of which lead them to believe "the Democratic Party is best for protecting them" (p. 1). American Jews who hold libertarian views could have brought about a party realignment, the author contends, but Donald Trump's victory forestalled the change, which Weisberg deems a missed opportunity. He then addresses a series of paradoxes in their voting behavior, considering, for example, why, despite being a mostly economically advantaged group, American Jewish voters behave according to lower-income voters' interests, or why conservative Jews are not Republican Party adherents. He offers the most comprehensive explanation of why American Jewry, despite distinct religious, cultural, and economic differences, remains, for the most part, a loyal Democratic voting block, suggesting that it has become a part of Jewish social identity. This landmark study is essential reading for students of public opinion and political behavior, as well as for professionals in campaign consulting.Summing Up: Essential. Graduate students, faculty, and professionals.

In the United States, the line between private sector activity and public sector function is neither always clear nor permanently fixed. That includes areas in which government directly competes with the private sector. Sometimes the latter initiates the competition (e.g., Federal Express versus the US Postal Service). At other times, government is the later entrant into the arena (public libraries versus bookstores). Although this book argues for more public options in many areas (banking, child care, health care, higher education, retirement), it also probes carefully the challenges involved and the potential for missteps. This is a first-rate overview of the public option, placing the policy tool in historical context as it advocates for its expansion. It is analytically sound and clearly presented. In addition to their impeccable academic credentials, one of the authors (Sitaraman) has served as a policy director for Senator Elizabeth Warren, lending even more policy credibility.Summing Up: Essential. Upper-division undergraduates through faculty.

In The Second Founding, Foner (emer., Columbia Univ.) argues that from the ashes of the US's bloody internal conflict rose three additions to the Constitution--the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments (1865, 1868, 1870)--that redefined US citizenship. Within a few years, formerly enslaved black laborers became citizens who participated in elections and held public offices--a feat that was unprecedented at the time and remains virtually unheard of in the global history of post-emancipation societies. In contrast to the many scholars who dwell on the failures of Reconstruction, Foner focuses on the positive, asserting that the period marked the beginning of the nation's long civil rights movement. Unfortunately, late-19th-century state governments and federal courts worked in tandem to reverse Reconstruction's achievements. With an eye focused on the present-day US, Foner reminds readers that protecting the Constitution requires constant vigilance to resist forces that seek an exclusive rather than inclusive national vision. The Second Founding solidifies Foner's place as one of the greatest historians of the present generation. His work serves as a reminder of Reconstruction's enduring presence in contemporary life. This engaging narrative will appeal to specialists and nonspecialists alike.Summing Up: Essential. Lower-division undergraduates through faculty; general readers.

Hart (government, Univ. of Texas, Austin) is a communications expert, and in Trump and Us, he explains why "so many reasonable people" continue to "plight their troth to such a preposterous fellow" as Trump (p. 229). Hart uses data analysis and quotations from the president, the press, and the people. Hart is a liberal but does not settle for the standard denunciation of Trump's supporters as "deplorables." Indeed, he bends over backward to get past his own revulsion and to view the ideas and feelings that produce support for Trump as sympathetically and seriously as he can. He even manages to give some weight to the weaknesses of Hillary Clinton, Trump's opponent in the 2016 election, and her party. Moreover, he is properly tough on the adversarial media, which increase Trump's support among his base the more venomously they attack. Hart concludes that, despite appearances, Trump is a brilliant political artist who, in short-cutting deliberation and rational speech, speaks powerfully to those who feel despised and cheated by the ruling class. In effect, Trump is good at being a demagogue. That conclusion is hardly surprising, and it is to Hart's credit that he realizes that the big questions are what Trump's success reveals about the American nation and its people.Summing Up: Essential. All readers.

Waste, abuse, and fraud have plagued the US government since the Revolutionary War. This trilogy of problems, along with significant growth of the executive branch and federal government after the New Deal, led Congress to pass the Inspector General Act of 1978. The act created semi-independent, nonpartisan officials across the entire federal government to audit the performance and spending of agencies. The primary goal of these individuals is to improve government performance and accountability and at the same time identify criminal activity and recover stolen resources. In this book Johnson (emer., Texas A & M Univ.) and Newcomer (Trachtenberg School of Public Policy and Public Administration, George Washington Univ.), both specialists in public policy, examine these inspectors general and their officers, and how well they perform their duties. The authors provide a history of the 1978 act but, more importantly, they interview inspectors general and provide case studies and performance evaluations of their offices. Readers will learn the varieties of performance inspectors general monitor across different government agencies, and also the specific things they must confront--the latter particularly fraught in the present partisan, polarized time. The book concludes with recommendations for reform.Summing Up: Essential. Upper-division undergraduates through faculty and professionals.

As the 2020 US presidential election draws near, Smith (Depaul Univ. School of Law) provides a timely and compelling assessment of the 2016 political contest. Unlike those who have pointed to voter turnout, economic malaise, rising populism, or urban/rural divisions, Smith convincingly argues that white racism best explains the election of Donald J. Trump. Over the course of ten chapters, the author traces the collapse of a post-civil rights consensus about the goodness of "antidiscrimination norms" (p. 4); how and why the fears, resentments, and perceived injuries of white Americans shape contemporary electoral politics; and the unique problems that expressions of animus and discrimination in elections pose. Smith does not simply diagnose the ills of racial politics today; he also explores a set of remedies to address them, asserting the primacy of legal interventions. He concludes by emphasizing the global contours of white resentment in public culture and popular politics. Required reading in this election year, Whitelash will prove impactful in the classroom and in scholarly discussions of racial politics.Summing Up: Essential. Upper-division undergraduates through faculty and professionals; general readers.