Explore the vast range of titles available.

Adding discursive institutionalism to the political science toolkit is key to understanding the victory of the forces pushing the UK to exit from the EU and for Trump's election in the US. The contextualized analysis of the substantive content of agents' ideas enables us to explore the ideational root causes of discontent, including economic neo-liberalism, social liberalism, and political mistrust. The examination of the discursive dynamics of policy coordination and political communication calls attention to agents' rhetorical strategies, the circulation of ideas in discursive communities, and the role of ideational leaders along with that of the public and the media in a post-truth era. Discursive institutionalism also lends insight into questions of power, including how ideational agents have been able to use their persuasive power through ideas to channel people's anger while challenging experts' power over ideas as they upended the long-standing power in ideas of the liberal order.

The aim of the paper is to examine the effects of the US-China trade war on both countries and some emerging economies. Two scenarios are examined, one where only US protectionist measures are considered, and another in which Chinese retaliation is taken into account, using the GTAP (Global Trade Analysis Project) Computable General Equilibrium model. The results showed that, on one hand, the trade war would lead to a reduction in US trade deficit and an increase in domestic production of those sectors affected by higher import tariffs and Chinese producers and consumers would bear the lion's share of the burden of the trade war. But, on the other hand, both countries and the world as a whole would lose in terms of welfare, due to the significant reduction in allocative efficiency, especially in the US, and the loss of terms of trade in the Chinese case. With the increase in protectionism between the two largest global economies, some important emerging countries, not directly involved in the trade war, would benefit by the shift in demand to sectors where they have comparative advantages.

TRUMP's speech of January 2021, by which he moved his supporters to storm the Capitol, caused wide-spread concern. However, the psychological mechanisms that enabled him to mobilize the audience in the service of his agenda are not sufficiently understood. Employing depth hermeneutics, a psychoanalytic method based on examining the effects of the speech on a group of researchers, I reconstruct TRUMP's address to reveal tensions between its manifest and latent meanings and account for its effects. I argue that his systematic use of falsehoods results in a reversal of the everyday relationship between manifest and latent meaning: In everyday life, socially acceptable wishes and fantasies are given voice and reprehensible ones are relegated to a latent level. TRUMP, conversely, relies on falsehoods to fire up his supporters by evoking socially objectionable concepts of life and to make fact- and reason-based objections to his claims unconscious. The fears and aggression fueled by the dramatization of the current political situation affect particularly, though not exclusively, those listeners who, due to traumas experienced in childhood, are susceptible to TRUMP's coping strategy of authoritarian conformity.

In the era of Brexit and President Trump, it is clear that we need to talk about populism. Populist political campaigns feature ever more widely, suggesting the phenomenon of a 'populist wave'. But do populist sentiments shape vote choice? Using data from Ireland and the United States, incorporating CSES Module 5 questions that focused on populist sentiments and vote choice in 2016, we show that populist sentiments did motivate voters in both countries. We also demonstrate, however, that the old reliables - economic perceptions, partisanship, and left-right ideology - mattered more. Thus, an exclusive focus on populism for the success of Donald Trump in the US or Sinn Féin/AAA in Ireland is unwarranted. Further, populist sentiments motivating vote choice differed between the two countries, raising fresh questions about whether populism can be regarded as an ideology and whether even the \"chameleon\" metaphor overclaims coherence for the term.