Matching Items (22)
Filtering by
- All Subjects: Democracy
- All Subjects: United States
- Creators: School of Politics and Global Studies
Description
This paper explores whether American football player Colin Kaepernick and other athletes’ refusal in 2016 to acknowledge the national anthem symbolizes a form of nationalism in the United States. At first glance, the rising support of “un-American” acts that reject traditional patriotism would imply that American nationalism is faltering. If one observes the colloquial understanding of nationalism as extreme commitment to a country, this may be true. But after closer examination, the pattern instead depicts a polarization of two distinct forms of nationalism — ethnocentric nationalism and what I call multicultural nationalism, both intensifying away from each other.
As opposed to colloquial understanding, there is no standard scholarly definition of nationalism, but it is widely seen as zeal over an identity that strives to manifest into an organized state. Despite this minimal consensus, nationalism is usually equated with an ethnocentric conception of the nation-state, what I recognize to be ethnocentric nationalism, the commitment to a linguistically, racially, and culturally likeminded nation. I argue that this traditional, ethnocentric understanding of nationalism is only one interpretation of nationalism. Ethnocentric nationalism has and continues to be in tension with a more recently established interpretation of the nation, which I call multicultural nationalism: the commitment to a country’s principles rather than to its racial, cultural, and religious ties.
A common acceptance of difference is growing in the United States as shown by Kaepernick’s public support in the face of patriotic conformity. This perspective draws from the United States’ ideological roots that argue for one nation made up of many, e pluribus unum, so that foreign backgrounds should not just be accepted but also embraced to form a more diverse nation. The passion for a progressive, multicultural America can be translated into its own movement of multicultural nationalism. In this context, the support for Kaepernick’s actions no longer appears to represent increased dissent from the United States, but instead seems to be an attempt to challenge ethnocentric nationalism’s claim to the nation.
This paper will begin by contrasting the reactions to Kaepernick’s protest and to protests before him in order to contend that nationalism is no longer characterized by only ethnocentric tradition. I will analyze theoretical studies on nationalism to dispute this common understanding that nationalism is solely ethnocentric. I will argue that nationalism, rather, is the intense manifestation of a community’s identity within a political state; the identity of which can be either ethnocentric or multicultural. The Kaepernick ordeal will be used to signify the greater division in the American public over whether a multicultural or ethnocentric conception of the nation should be supported in the United States. Lastly, this paper will observe how the Kaepernick protest suggests multicultural nationalism’s viability in today’s politically progressive environment, and how multiculturalism should embrace nationalism to advance its platform.
As opposed to colloquial understanding, there is no standard scholarly definition of nationalism, but it is widely seen as zeal over an identity that strives to manifest into an organized state. Despite this minimal consensus, nationalism is usually equated with an ethnocentric conception of the nation-state, what I recognize to be ethnocentric nationalism, the commitment to a linguistically, racially, and culturally likeminded nation. I argue that this traditional, ethnocentric understanding of nationalism is only one interpretation of nationalism. Ethnocentric nationalism has and continues to be in tension with a more recently established interpretation of the nation, which I call multicultural nationalism: the commitment to a country’s principles rather than to its racial, cultural, and religious ties.
A common acceptance of difference is growing in the United States as shown by Kaepernick’s public support in the face of patriotic conformity. This perspective draws from the United States’ ideological roots that argue for one nation made up of many, e pluribus unum, so that foreign backgrounds should not just be accepted but also embraced to form a more diverse nation. The passion for a progressive, multicultural America can be translated into its own movement of multicultural nationalism. In this context, the support for Kaepernick’s actions no longer appears to represent increased dissent from the United States, but instead seems to be an attempt to challenge ethnocentric nationalism’s claim to the nation.
This paper will begin by contrasting the reactions to Kaepernick’s protest and to protests before him in order to contend that nationalism is no longer characterized by only ethnocentric tradition. I will analyze theoretical studies on nationalism to dispute this common understanding that nationalism is solely ethnocentric. I will argue that nationalism, rather, is the intense manifestation of a community’s identity within a political state; the identity of which can be either ethnocentric or multicultural. The Kaepernick ordeal will be used to signify the greater division in the American public over whether a multicultural or ethnocentric conception of the nation should be supported in the United States. Lastly, this paper will observe how the Kaepernick protest suggests multicultural nationalism’s viability in today’s politically progressive environment, and how multiculturalism should embrace nationalism to advance its platform.
ContributorsFite, Owen Gunehame (Author) / Suk, Mina (Thesis director) / Voorhees, Matthew (Committee member) / School of Politics and Global Studies (Contributor, Contributor) / W. P. Carey School of Business (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2017-05
Description
This research looks at the state of Anglo-American political relations since 1980. By examining the political partnerships between Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, Margaret Thatcher and George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush and Tony Blair, Barack Obama and Gordon Brown, and Barack Obama and David Cameron, it explores if the so called ‘special relationship’ remains so special today in a world of growing political animosity and challenges. The thesis argues that the success of the ‘special relationship’ between the United States and United Kingdom has not been just due to similar political ideologies or goals, but also personal friendships which often overcame national interests or immediate personal political gain. Furthermore, it is often the periods of disagreement between these sets of leaders that helped strengthen the relationship between America and Britain, evidenced by episodes like the Falklands War, policy towards the Soviet Union, the invasion of Grenada, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Ultimately, the thesis explores how current relations have deteriorated due to problems on both sides of the Atlantic under the Obama, Brown, and Cameron administrations, but the research concludes that the special relationship is, while damaged, alive and fixable.
ContributorsGavin, Stephen Christopher (Author) / Critchlow, Donald (Thesis director) / Stermetz, Catherine (Committee member) / School of Politics and Global Studies (Contributor) / School of Historical, Philosophical and Religious Studies (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2015-12
Description
The right to cast a meaningful vote, equal in value to other votes, is a fundamental tenet US elections. Despite the 1964 Supreme Court decision formally establishing the one person, one vote principle as a legal requirement of elections, our democracy consistently falls short of it. With mechanisms including the winner-take-all format in the Electoral College, disproportioned geographic allocation of senators, extreme partisan gerrymandering in the House of Representatives, and first-past-the-post elections, many voters experience severe vote dilution. <br/><br/>In order to legitimize our democratic structures, American elections should be reformed so every person’s vote has equal weight, ensuring that the election outcomes reflect the will of the people. Altering the current election structure to include more proportional structures including rank choice voting and population-based representation, will result in a democracy more compatible with the one person, one vote principle.
ContributorsSluga, Allison Leigh (Author) / Hinojosa, Magda (Thesis director) / Gartner, David (Committee member) / School of International Letters and Cultures (Contributor) / School of Politics and Global Studies (Contributor, Contributor, Contributor) / School of Public Affairs (Contributor) / Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2021-05
Description
Czechoslovakia failed to implement democracy and nationalism in an equal and fair manner to the Czechs and Slovaks. As Masaryk mirrored Czechoslovakia off of the United States and his close friend President Wilson, the founding Czechoslovakian documents created an unequal version of the basic democratic principles. The domestic geopolitical culture of nationalism and nationalism abroad influenced ethnic identification between the new borders for the Czechs and Slovaks. Without the shared social language of Czechoslovakian nationalism the Czechs and Slovaks did not unite politically, ethnically, or at all. This allowed for the Czechs to take over and create their idealist democracy, otherwise known as an ethnocracy.
ContributorsPeak, Madison Kimsey (Author) / Sivak, Henry (Thesis director) / Pout, Daniel (Committee member) / School of Politics and Global Studies (Contributor, Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2021-05
Description
Disinformation has long been a tactic used by the Russian government to achieve its goals. Today, Vladimir Putin aims to achieve several things: weaken the United States’ strength on the world stage, relieve Western sanctions on himself and his inner circle, and reassert dominant influence over Russia’s near abroad (the Baltics, Ukraine, etc.). This research analyzed disinformation in English, Spanish, and Russian; noting the dominant narratives and geopolitical goals Russia hoped to achieve by destabilizing democracy in each country/region.
ContributorsHorowitz, Jamie Fara (Author) / Sivak, Henry (Thesis director) / Brown, Keith (Committee member) / Historical, Philosophical & Religious Studies (Contributor) / School of Politics and Global Studies (Contributor) / Historical, Philosophical & Religious Studies, Sch (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2021-05
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 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
Description
As the world watched the United States Capitol Building come under siege by thousands of insurrectionists on January 6th, 2021, it was clear that a nation once regarded by conservatives as a “City Upon a Hill” was now in the process of a radical reawakening and party transformation. The American far-right’s radical transformation of the Republican Party and the relentless false belief of “The Big Lie”, that the 2020 election was stolen and fraudulent, delegitimizes America’s political institutions while undermining the nation’s electoral process. This has created a modern rebirth of racism, hatred, and political violence that is seen in American politics and society. Because of this, the far-right has weaponized American institutions to push both racist, discriminatory ideas and laws throughout the country. This study aims to answer the question of "how is The Big Lie dismantling American democracy and reshaping GOP?".
ContributorsEspeland, Eric (Author) / Voorhees, Matthew (Thesis director) / Kirkpatrick, Jennet (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor) / School of Human Evolution & Social Change (Contributor) / Dean, W.P. Carey School of Business (Contributor) / School of Politics and Global Studies (Contributor)
Created2022-05
Description
ABSTRACT
The right to vote is widely considered as one of the fundamental pillars of a democratic society. Throughout the history of the United States, this pillar has gradually grown in strength as voting has become a far more inclusive and accessible exertion of political power and expression of political will. Currently in the United States, for the first time in decades, that pillar is slowly yet steadily eroding. There is a narrative, one that has been cultivated and carefully constructed for centuries, that the United States is a bastion of democracy. Although various groups have been oppressed and excluded from the voting franchise historically, the narrative promotes the idea that the right to vote is now fully enjoyed. But what does “the right” to vote really mean? Additionally, is the narrative that the United States is a true democracy with robust voter protections a reality, or is it a deceptive tactic meant to shroud the fact that voter power is undeniably waning?
This paper challenges that narrative, as well as argues that having “the right” to vote is hollow. The power of voters has always been diluted by the blanket exclusion of certain groups. Currently, however, the power of voters is being diluted by various forms of political, legal, and financial manipulation. Gerrymandering, voter suppression, and big money all contribute to the distortion and destruction of democracy in the United States, preventing it from fully realizing the ideals that have, ostensibly, guided it since its inception. This paper will examine each of these forms in terms of their history, their implementation, and their effects and consequences on voter power, as well as their influence on democracy in the United States as a whole. Additionally, this paper analyzes the potential solutions to these pernicious forms of voter dilution, seeking to discover if democracy in the United States can avoid becoming unrecognizable from the narrative that has supported it for centuries.
The right to vote is widely considered as one of the fundamental pillars of a democratic society. Throughout the history of the United States, this pillar has gradually grown in strength as voting has become a far more inclusive and accessible exertion of political power and expression of political will. Currently in the United States, for the first time in decades, that pillar is slowly yet steadily eroding. There is a narrative, one that has been cultivated and carefully constructed for centuries, that the United States is a bastion of democracy. Although various groups have been oppressed and excluded from the voting franchise historically, the narrative promotes the idea that the right to vote is now fully enjoyed. But what does “the right” to vote really mean? Additionally, is the narrative that the United States is a true democracy with robust voter protections a reality, or is it a deceptive tactic meant to shroud the fact that voter power is undeniably waning?
This paper challenges that narrative, as well as argues that having “the right” to vote is hollow. The power of voters has always been diluted by the blanket exclusion of certain groups. Currently, however, the power of voters is being diluted by various forms of political, legal, and financial manipulation. Gerrymandering, voter suppression, and big money all contribute to the distortion and destruction of democracy in the United States, preventing it from fully realizing the ideals that have, ostensibly, guided it since its inception. This paper will examine each of these forms in terms of their history, their implementation, and their effects and consequences on voter power, as well as their influence on democracy in the United States as a whole. Additionally, this paper analyzes the potential solutions to these pernicious forms of voter dilution, seeking to discover if democracy in the United States can avoid becoming unrecognizable from the narrative that has supported it for centuries.
ContributorsBeal, Peyton Alexander (Author) / Lennon, Tara (Thesis director) / Switzer, Heather (Committee member) / School of Politics and Global Studies (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2019-12
Description
This short documentary on the Equal Rights Amendment features attorney Dianne Post and State Representative Jennifer Jermaine, and it examines the fight for passage at the federal and state level. This film attempts to answer the following questions: What is the ERA? What is its history? Why do we need it? How do we get it into the Constitution of the United States of America?
The text of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) states that “equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.” The amendment was authored by Alice Paul and was first introduced into Congress in 1923. The ERA did not make much progress until 1970, when Representative Martha Griffiths from Michigan filed a discharge petition demanding that the ERA move out of the judiciary committee to be heard by the full United States House of Representatives. The House passed it and it went on to the Senate, where it was approved and sent to the states for ratification. By 1977, 35 states had voted to ratify the ERA, but it did not reach the 38 states-threshold required for ratification before the 1982 deadline set by Congress. More recently, Nevada ratified the ERA in March 2017, and Illinois followed suit in May 2018. On January 27th, 2020, Virginia finalized its ratification, making it the 38th state to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment.
Supporters of the ERA argue that we have reached the required goal of approval by 38 states. However, opponents may have at least two legal arguments to challenge this claim by ERA advocates. First, the deadline to ratify was 1982. Second, five states have voted to rescind their ratification since their initial approval. These political and legal challenges must be addressed and resolved before the ERA can be considered part of the United States Constitution. Nevertheless, ERA advocates continue to pursue certification. There are complicated questions to untangle here, to be sure, but by listening to a variety of perspectives and critically examining the historical and legal context, it may be possible to find some answers. Indeed, Arizona, which has yet to ratify the ERA, could play a vital role in the on-going fight for the ERA.
The text of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) states that “equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.” The amendment was authored by Alice Paul and was first introduced into Congress in 1923. The ERA did not make much progress until 1970, when Representative Martha Griffiths from Michigan filed a discharge petition demanding that the ERA move out of the judiciary committee to be heard by the full United States House of Representatives. The House passed it and it went on to the Senate, where it was approved and sent to the states for ratification. By 1977, 35 states had voted to ratify the ERA, but it did not reach the 38 states-threshold required for ratification before the 1982 deadline set by Congress. More recently, Nevada ratified the ERA in March 2017, and Illinois followed suit in May 2018. On January 27th, 2020, Virginia finalized its ratification, making it the 38th state to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment.
Supporters of the ERA argue that we have reached the required goal of approval by 38 states. However, opponents may have at least two legal arguments to challenge this claim by ERA advocates. First, the deadline to ratify was 1982. Second, five states have voted to rescind their ratification since their initial approval. These political and legal challenges must be addressed and resolved before the ERA can be considered part of the United States Constitution. Nevertheless, ERA advocates continue to pursue certification. There are complicated questions to untangle here, to be sure, but by listening to a variety of perspectives and critically examining the historical and legal context, it may be possible to find some answers. Indeed, Arizona, which has yet to ratify the ERA, could play a vital role in the on-going fight for the ERA.
ContributorsSchroder, Jude Alexander (Author) / Adelman, Madelaine (Thesis director) / Mitchell, Kathryn (Committee member) / School of Politics and Global Studies (Contributor, Contributor, Contributor) / School of International Letters and Cultures (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2020-05
Description
The overall purpose of this project was to examine a democratic transition and the factors that lead to a transition by looking at a specific country case. The Malaysian 2018 General Election saw the Barisan Nasional (BN) political party, which had been in power since the nation’s independence, lose to the opposition party, Pakatan Harapan (PH), in a shocking turn of events. When looking at this particular case, it was important to first establish what the most common factors are, that exist in democratic transitions. By applying these factors to the Malaysian case, it allowed for a deeper understanding of whether or not this democratic transition would take root quickly or instead take several years. Along with connecting these academically studied factors to Malaysia, it was also critical at examining the major events unique to the country that helped contribute to the BN’s loss. When examining this case in particular, what became evident was that the election results and overall transition had already been building up for several years.
ContributorsSantaella, Ana (Author) / Shair-Rosenfield, Sarah (Thesis director) / Funk, Kendall (Committee member) / School of Politics and Global Studies (Contributor, Contributor) / School of International Letters and Cultures (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2019-05