<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>University of Chicago Press: New Titles in Political Science: American Government and Politics</title>
    <link>http://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/rss/books/RSS.xml</link>
    <description>The latest new books in Political Science: American Government and Politics</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 18 Jun 2013 05:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
    <ttl>1440</ttl>
    <item>
      <title>Out of Many, One</title>
      <link>http://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/O/bo15507491.html</link>
      <description>Feared by conservatives and embraced by liberals when he entered the White House, Barack Obama has since been battered by criticism from both sides.&amp;#160;In Out of Many, One, Ruth O’Brien explains why. We are accustomed to seeing politicians supporting either a minimalist state characterized by unfettered capitalism and individual rights or a relatively strong welfare state and regulatory capitalism. Obama, O’Brien argues, represents the values of a lesser-known third tradition in American political thought that defies the usual left-right categorization.Bearing traces of Baruch Spinoza, John Dewey, and Saul Alinsky, Obama’s progressivism embraces the ideas of mutual reliance and collective responsibility, and adopts an interconnected view of the individual and the state. So, while Obama might emphasize difference, he rejects identity politics, which can create permanent minorities and diminish individual agency. Analyzing Obama’s major legislative victories—financial regulation, health care, and the stimulus package—O’Brien shows how they reflect a stakeholder society that neither regulates in the manner of the New Deal nor deregulates. Instead, Obama focuses on negotiated rule making and allows executive branch agencies to fill in the details when dealing with a deadlocked Congress. Similarly, his commitment to difference and his resistance to universal mandates underlies his reluctance to advocate for human rights as much as many on the Democratic left had hoped.By establishing Obama within the context of a much longer and broader political tradition, this book sheds critical light on both the political and philosophical underpinnings of his presidency and a fundamental shift in American political thought.&amp;#160;</description>
      <content:encoded>&lt;div&gt;Feared by conservatives and embraced by liberals when he entered the White House, Barack Obama has since been battered by criticism from both sides.&amp;#160;In &lt;i&gt;Out of Many, One&lt;/i&gt;, Ruth O&amp;rsquo;Brien explains why. We are accustomed to seeing politicians supporting either a minimalist state characterized by unfettered capitalism and individual rights or a relatively strong welfare state and regulatory capitalism. Obama, O&amp;rsquo;Brien argues, represents the values of a lesser-known third tradition in American political thought that defies the usual left-right categorization.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Bearing traces of Baruch Spinoza, John Dewey, and Saul Alinsky, Obama&amp;rsquo;s progressivism embraces the ideas of mutual reliance and collective responsibility, and adopts an interconnected view of the individual and the state. So, while Obama might emphasize difference, he rejects identity politics, which can create permanent minorities and diminish individual agency. Analyzing Obama&amp;rsquo;s major legislative victories&amp;mdash;financial regulation, health care, and the stimulus package&amp;mdash;O&amp;rsquo;Brien shows how they reflect a stakeholder society that neither regulates in the manner of the New Deal nor deregulates. Instead, Obama focuses on negotiated rule making and allows executive branch agencies to fill in the details when dealing with a deadlocked Congress. Similarly, his commitment to difference and his resistance to universal mandates underlies his reluctance to advocate for human rights as much as many on the Democratic left had hoped.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div&gt;By establishing Obama within the context of a much longer and broader political tradition, this book sheds critical light on both the political and philosophical underpinnings of his presidency and a fundamental shift in American political thought.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div&gt;&amp;#160;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br&gt;</content:encoded>
      <enclosure url="http://press.uchicago.edu/dms/ucp/books/jacket/978/02/26/04/9780226041629.jpeg" length="23608" type="image/jpeg" />
      <category>Political Science: American Government and Politics</category>
      <category>Political Science: Political and Social Theory</category>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 May 2013 05:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <author>Ruth O'Brien; Thomas Byrne Edsall</author>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">9780226041599</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Women in the Club</title>
      <link>http://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/W/bo15233103.html</link>
      <description>In the run-up to the 2012 presidential election, Democrats and Republicans were locked in a fierce battle for the female vote. Democrats charged Republicans with waging a “war on women,” while Republicans countered that Democratic policies actually undermined women’s rights. The women of the Senate wielded particular power, planning press conferences, appearing on political programs, and taking to the Senate floor over gender-related issues such as workplace equality and reproductive rights.The first book to examine the impact of gender differences in the Senate, Women in the Club is an eye-opening exploration of how women are influencing policy and politics in this erstwhile male bastion of power. Gender, Michele L. Swers shows, is a fundamental factor for women in the Senate, interacting with both party affiliation and individual ideology to shape priorities on policy. Women, for example, are more active proponents of social welfare and women’s rights. But the effects of gender extend beyond mere policy preferences. Senators also develop their priorities with an eye to managing voter expectations about their expertise and advancing their party’s position on a given issue. The election of women in increasing numbers has also coincided with the evolution of the Senate as a highly partisan institution. The stark differences between the parties on issues pertaining to gender have meant that Democratic and Republican senators often assume very different roles as they reconcile their policy views on gender issues with the desire to act as members of partisan teams championing or defending their party’s record in an effort to reach various groups of voters.</description>
      <content:encoded>&lt;p&gt;In the run-up to the 2012 presidential election, Democrats and Republicans were locked in a fierce battle for the female vote. Democrats charged Republicans with waging a &amp;ldquo;war on women,&amp;rdquo; while Republicans countered that Democratic policies actually undermined women&amp;rsquo;s rights. The women of the Senate wielded particular power, planning press conferences, appearing on political programs, and taking to the Senate floor over gender-related issues such as workplace equality and reproductive rights.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The first book to examine the impact of gender differences in the Senate, &lt;i&gt;Women in the Club&lt;/i&gt; is an eye-opening exploration of how women are influencing policy and politics in this erstwhile male bastion of power. Gender, Michele L. Swers shows, is a fundamental factor for women in the Senate, interacting with both party affiliation and individual ideology to shape priorities on policy. Women, for example, are more active proponents of social welfare and women&amp;rsquo;s rights. But the effects of gender extend beyond mere policy preferences. Senators also develop their priorities with an eye to managing voter expectations about their expertise and advancing their party&amp;rsquo;s position on a given issue. The election of women in increasing numbers has also coincided with the evolution of the Senate as a highly partisan institution. The stark differences between the parties on issues pertaining to gender have meant that Democratic and Republican senators often assume very different roles as they reconcile their policy views on gender issues with the desire to act as members of partisan teams championing or defending their party&amp;rsquo;s record in an effort to reach various groups of voters.&lt;/p&gt;</content:encoded>
      <enclosure url="http://press.uchicago.edu/dms/ucp/books/jacket/978/02/26/02/9780226022826.jpeg" length="25025" type="image/jpeg" />
      <category>Political Science: American Government and Politics</category>
      <category>Women's Studies</category>
      <pubDate>Tue, 23 Apr 2013 05:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <author>Michele L. Swers</author>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">9780226022796</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
