Explore the vast range of titles available.

The Speaker of the House of Representatives is the most powerful partisan figure in the contemporary U.S. Congress. How this came to be, and how the majority party in the House has made control of the speakership a routine matter, is far from straightforward.Fighting for the Speakershipprovides a comprehensive history of how Speakers have been elected in the U.S. House since 1789, arguing that the organizational politics of these elections were critical to the construction of mass political parties in America and laid the groundwork for the role they play in setting the agenda of Congress today. Jeffery Jenkins and Charles Stewart show how the speakership began as a relatively weak office, and how votes for Speaker prior to the Civil War often favored regional interests over party loyalty. While struggle, contention, and deadlock over House organization were common in the antebellum era, such instability vanished with the outbreak of war, as the majority party became an \"organizational cartel\" capable of controlling with certainty the selection of the Speaker and other key House officers. This organizational cartel has survived Gilded Age partisan strife, Progressive Era challenge, and conservative coalition politics to guide speakership elections through the present day.Fighting for the Speakershipreveals how struggles over House organization prior to the Civil War were among the most consequential turning points in American political history.

One of the most important and controversial books in modern American politics, The Emerging Republican Majority (1969) explained how Richard Nixon won the White House in 1968—and why the Republicans would go on to dominate presidential politics for the next quarter century. Rightly or wrongly, the book has widely been seen as a blueprint for how Republicans, using the so-called Southern Strategy, could build a durable winning coalition in presidential elections. Certainly, Nixon's election marked the end of a \"New Deal Democratic hegemony\" and the beginning of a conservative realignment encompassing historically Democratic voters from the South and the Florida-to-California \"Sun Belt,\" in the book's enduring coinage. In accounting for that shift, Kevin Phillips showed how two decades and more of social and political changes had created enormous opportunities for a resurgent conservative Republican Party. For this new edition, Phillips has written a preface describing his view of the book, its reception, and how its analysis was borne out in subsequent elections. A work whose legacy and influence are still fiercely debated, The Emerging Republican Majority is essential reading for anyone interested in American politics or history.

The purpose of this article is to assess the state of the discipline of British politics. The article takes as its starting point the historic emergence of the first coalition government since the end of Second World War and the impact of its politics of retrenchment. From here the Conservative–Liberal Democrat Coalition's controversial higher education reforms in England are evaluated and the focus is unsurprisingly on the significant increase of tuition fees from September 2012, but also on the wider implications of the Browne Report. The article then analyses the changes in the discipline in the recent past, which reflect the tumultuous global events of the 1990s and the internationalisation of political science. The article then surveys the current obstacles and pressures that face scholars working in British politics such as the Research Excellence Framework and the emerging culture of the necessity for research income and its effects on scholarship. The article concludes with an argument for the efficacy of British politics as a discipline within political science.

\"Whenever I was governor, I cut taxes three times and nobody raised an eyebrow,\" [Zell Miller] said in an interview Thursday. \"I passed not just a 'three strikes and you're out' bill but a 'two strikes.' I appointed a chairman of the state Board of Education . . . who happened to be a Republican. I did those kinds of things back in Georgia and . . . everybody understood it and everybody thought that was OK. Miller also blames the party for contributing to last year's defeat of his fellow Georgia Democrat, Sen. Max Cleland. Cleland was leading in the polls several weeks before the election, but his acquiescence in his party's push for more labor rights for workers in the then-planned Homeland Security Department allowed Republicans to criticize him as being opposed to national security, Miller said. Hastings Wyman, publisher of the Southern Political Report newsletter, said Miller's opinions might be right for some, but off the mark for others. \"I certainly think its correct if you're in Georgia,\" Wyman said Thursday. \"It's less true if you're in Massachusetts, or perhaps California, or some other places. I think it's certainly true that both parties do better when they move toward the middle, and it's also true that the activists and true believers in both parties resist that kind of movement.\"

According to Shirley & Banister Public Affairs, which is handling publicity for [Zell Miller] about the book, the senator outlines in it his perception that the Democratic Party is no longer tapped into the concerns and hopes of Americans. \"Many party loyalists will not like what Sen. Miller writes,\" Stroud & Hall says in a release about the book. \"Driven by conscience and common sense, Sen. Miller names the self-destructive direction of his party and stubbornly pulls the Democratic family toward reform.\" Miller, a former governor of Georgia, will question in the book whether the Democratic Party can field a successful presidential candidate in the future, according to Shirley & Banister.

[Jimmy Carter], appearing on the radio program \"Fox News Live With Alan Colmes,\" said Wednesday that \"one of the worst mistakes\" Roy Barnes made during his term as Georgia governor was appointing [Zell Miller] to the Senate following the July 2000 death of Republican Sen. Paul Coverdell. Miller later won a special election to fill the rest of Coverdell's term. \"Jimmy Carter and I have been friends for more than 40 years,\" Miller said. \"And over those 40-plus years, I bet I've received about two dozen personal notes from Jimmy Carter. Half of them are giving me hell, and the other half are bragging on me. So, I figure I'm doing OK batting .500 with Jimmy Carter.\" On Wednesday, Miller was making more of the comments that have spurred responses such as Carter's. During an appearance on \"The Daily Show With Jon Stewart\" on Comedy Central, Stewart asked Miller what he thought of former Vice President Al Gore's endorsement of former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination. \"I think they deserve each other,\" quipped Miller, who in his book criticizes both Gore and Dean.

The insurrection of January 6, 2021, demonstrated conclusively that tribalism in the United States has become dangerous. The \"other side\" is no longer viewed as a well-intentioned opponent but as an existential threat. If we don't change course, American democracy is far from assured. This book outlines specific steps that average citizens can take to back the nation away from the brink. Instead of looking to political leaders, institutions, or policy for solutions to extreme partisanship, Christopher Beem argues that concerned citizens can and must take up the cause. He spells out seven civic practices we can all follow that will help us work against our antidemocratic tendencies and reorient the nation toward the \"more perfect union\" of our Founders. Beem's road map to restore our democracy draws on thinkers from Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas to James Madison, Hannah Arendt, Abraham Lincoln, and Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Empathetic and eminently reasonable, The Seven Democratic Virtues presents practical advice for what each of us can do to change the political discourse and save our democracy. This is necessary reading for our politics today-and in the future.

While Stephen Harper’s foreign policy sparked heated debates during his entire tenure as prime minister, these debates were mainly confined to Canadian foreign policy circles. Little attention was paid to allies’ perceptions of these developments and, more specifically, to the perception of the United States, Canada’s main economic and security partner. How did the Bush and Obama administrations perceive these changes? Were they seen as a break from Canada’s past? Did Harper’s handling of foreign policy alter White House calculations with respect to Canada? Based on a series of semi-structured interviews conducted in Washington DC with executive officials a few months prior to the end of the Harper era in 2015, this essay shows that despite a widespread perception in Washington that Canada’s foreign policy approach had changed under Harper, partisanship was the main dividing line in terms of how this approach was perceived and assessed.