Matching Items (6)
Filtering by

Clear all filters

136580-Thumbnail Image.png
Description
Congress has grown increasingly partisan since the 1970's, with the most extreme levels of partisanship occurring in the last few years. The media has also reflected on the loss of bipartisanship in Congress. However, the media often cites women as one of the last groups in the Senate willing to

Congress has grown increasingly partisan since the 1970's, with the most extreme levels of partisanship occurring in the last few years. The media has also reflected on the loss of bipartisanship in Congress. However, the media often cites women as one of the last groups in the Senate willing to cross party lines. I analyze party unity scores from 1993-2013 to see if women senators are less partisan than their male counterparts, and if Democratic women senators are more or less partisan than Republican women senators. From these results, I find that Republican female senators are less partisan than Republican male senators and Democratic senators of either gender. I also find Democratic female senators are more partisan than Republican female senators, and just as partisan or more partisan than Democratic male senators. However, when analyzed through co-sponsorship data from 2009-2015, women senators are seen as more bipartisan than men. Finally, through anecdotal research, I find that both Republican and Democratic men and women in the Senate believe women legislate differently than men and view them as more willing to find common ground. I also find Republican and Democratic women of the Senate have shared experiences that lead them to forge bipartisan relationships that could lead them to work in a more bipartisan way. An interview with former Senator Olympia Snowe reveals that she believes women are results oriented and willing to work together on a range of issues, and especially those that benefit women.
ContributorsBennett, Linnea Christine (Author) / Woodall, Gina (Thesis director) / Lennon, Tara (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor) / School of Politics and Global Studies (Contributor)
Created2015-05
133877-Thumbnail Image.png
Description
In 2016, the Western world was shocked by the victory of the "Leave" campaign in the referendum on European Union membership in Great Britain and by the victory of Donald Trump in the United States' presidential election. These two electoral successes have been called "populist" campaigns in their respective countries.

In 2016, the Western world was shocked by the victory of the "Leave" campaign in the referendum on European Union membership in Great Britain and by the victory of Donald Trump in the United States' presidential election. These two electoral successes have been called "populist" campaigns in their respective countries. In this paper, I ask whether the widespread populist sentiment in the United States and Great Britain qualifies as "populist" and should be regarded as part of the same movement. I then explore whether Trump and Leave voters are motivated by a common issue or set of issues. Initially, I frame my argument by defining populism and showing how both campaigns meet the definition. Next, I compare the Leave campaign with the Trump campaign and explore the similarities and differences in the demographics and opinions of their supporters. I determine that while the Trump and Leave campaigns certainly have differences, they should ultimately be treated as two branches of the same movement. Finally, I conclude that both campaigns are more motivated by versions of cultural resentment than economic anxiety.
ContributorsDunning, Alexander Chase (Author) / Lennon, Tara (Thesis director) / Simhony, Avital (Committee member) / Department of Finance (Contributor) / School of Politics and Global Studies (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2018-05
134131-Thumbnail Image.png
Description
On November 8th, 2016, pollsters, news correspondents, and millions of American voters watched in disbelief as the news came in; Donald J. Trump had been elected as the 45th President of the United States. Donald Trump, How Did This Happen?: An Analysis of Rhetorical Strategies Utilized in the 2016 Presidential

On November 8th, 2016, pollsters, news correspondents, and millions of American voters watched in disbelief as the news came in; Donald J. Trump had been elected as the 45th President of the United States. Donald Trump, How Did This Happen?: An Analysis of Rhetorical Strategies Utilized in the 2016 Presidential Campaign of Donald Trump is a rhetorical analysis of the strategies implemented in Donald Trump's 2016 Presidential campaign. It challenges the idea that the Donald Trump win was "unprecedented" and rather that when looking at the white, working-class in the the United States, their attraction to Trump should have been expected. White, blue-collar Americans trust the government at historically low rates. That, coupled with economic insecurity and a culture of fear that is heavily steeped in racial undertones, allowed the Trump campaign to successfully use fear as a mechanism to encourage Trump supporters to vote.
ContributorsHoffer, Aubrey Linn (Author) / Doty, Roxanne (Thesis director) / Lennon, Tara (Committee member) / Sanford School of Social and Family Dynamics (Contributor) / School of Politics and Global Studies (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2017-12
148343-Thumbnail Image.png
Description

This paper is an in-depth analysis of the actions and rhetoric of Donald Trump’s presidency from the perspective of Machiavelli’s most famed work, 'The Prince'. Its premise is born from two articles claiming Donald Trump was either the American Machiavelli or the Anti-Machiavelli, and sets out to find out which title

This paper is an in-depth analysis of the actions and rhetoric of Donald Trump’s presidency from the perspective of Machiavelli’s most famed work, 'The Prince'. Its premise is born from two articles claiming Donald Trump was either the American Machiavelli or the Anti-Machiavelli, and sets out to find out which title is the most accurate. The end findings suggest that President Trump did not follow enough rules in 'The Prince' to be Machiavellian, but that Trumpism as a political doctrine has the potential grow into a modern day Machiavellianism.

Created2021-05
137118-Thumbnail Image.png
Description
If democracy is the best way to rule why then is it limited only to the political sphere? This question is central to economic democracy which is the theory that economic activities should be governed by democratic principles. In America, ESOPs are used for a variety of reasons, and I

If democracy is the best way to rule why then is it limited only to the political sphere? This question is central to economic democracy which is the theory that economic activities should be governed by democratic principles. In America, ESOPs are used for a variety of reasons, and I believe that they can be used for the development of democratic firms. My thesis looks at current ESOPs to see if they are democratic, and suggests how they can be used to develop democratic firms.
ContributorsHeth, Zachary Fredrick (Author) / Simhony, Avital (Thesis director) / Lennon, Tara (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor) / Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry (Contributor) / School of Politics and Global Studies (Contributor) / School of Life Sciences (Contributor)
Created2014-05
161041-Thumbnail Image.png
Description

Despite George Washington’s warning against political parties, the United States we know today consists of two political parties that are becoming even more polarized. Since President Trump’s first run for the Republican party candidate and presidency, these partisan tensions have been recharged with further polarization and many individuals swearing on

Despite George Washington’s warning against political parties, the United States we know today consists of two political parties that are becoming even more polarized. Since President Trump’s first run for the Republican party candidate and presidency, these partisan tensions have been recharged with further polarization and many individuals swearing on social media they would never date a Trump supporter. According to Pew Research Center, “45% [of Democrats and those who lean left who are currently seeking relationships] say they definitely would not consider seriously dating a Trump voter” (Brown 2020). The divide between parties and the importance of political beliefs amongst partners has appeared to only increase after the actions taken at the Capitol on January 6, 2021. My research aims to quantify this phenomenon and then discover the “why?” behind it. How many people really consider their partner’s partisan affiliation and political beliefs a deal-breaker? Further, is it a deal-breaker because of the individual’s identity and political beliefs? Using intersectionality as a framework to examine identity and the confluence of identifiers and oppressors, will allow for a deeper understanding and personal account of why individuals find partisanship to be such a big criterion in a partner.

ContributorsPerryman, Olivia (Author) / Lennon, Tara (Thesis director) / McGibbney-Vlahoulis, Michelle (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor) / School of Politics and Global Studies (Contributor) / School of Social Transformation (Contributor)
Created2021-12