New Books in American Politics

All nations make rules -- through their constitutions, legislatures, bureaucratic practices – about who counts as a citizen. American by Birth examines the role of the Supreme Court – particularly a ruling from 1898 that is still precedent today. Wong Kim Ark v. United States interpreted the language of the 14th Amendment to answer whether a man born in the United States was a citizen. The Court ruled in favor of Wong Kim Ark and held that the 14th Amendment extends to children of immigrants who were born in the United States. Using the work of legal scholars, political scientists, and historians, Drs. Julie L. Novkov and Carol Nackenoff provide an extended biography of Wong Kim Ark and the historic 1898 landmark case – but also a biography of US Citizenship from the colonies to the present. American by Birth: Wong Kim Ark and the Battle for Citizenship (UP of Kansas, 2021) concludes with an impressive chapter that contextualizes birthright citizenship globally and within the context of American politics and scholarly debates – with an emphasis on the vulnerability of birthright citizenship to indirect and direct change.

Dr. Julie L. Novkov is Professor of Political Science and Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies and interim dean of Rockefeller college at the University at Albany, SUNY. She is the author of Racial Union: Law, Intimacy, and the White State in Alabama, 1865-1954 (UMichigan, 2008).

Dr. Carol Nackenoff is Richter Professor emeritus of Political Science at Swarthmore College. She is the author of The Fictional Republic: Horatio Alger and American Political Discourse (Oxford, 1994).

They are also co-editors of Stating the Family: New Directions in the Study of American Politics (University Press of Kansas, 2020) and Statebuilding from the Margins: Between Reconstruction and the New Deal (University of Pennsylvania Press, 2014)

Two resources mentioned in the podcast: Tian Atlas Xu’s “Immigration Attorneys and Chinese Exclusion Law Enforcement: The Case of San Francisco, 1882–1930” and

the symposium on American by Birth.

Daniella Campos assisted with this podcast.

Susan Liebell is Dirk Warren '50 Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph’s University in Philadelphia.

Personal reinvention is a core part of the human condition. Yet in the mid-twentieth century, certain private religious choices became lightning rods for public outrage and debate.

Rebecca L. Davis's book Public Confessions: The Religious Conversions That Changed American Politics (UNC Press, 2021) reveals the controversial religious conversions that shaped modern America. Rebecca L. Davis explains why the new faiths of notable figures including Clare Boothe Luce, Whittaker Chambers, Sammy Davis Jr., Marilyn Monroe, Muhammad Ali, Chuck Colson, and others riveted the American public. Unconventional religious choices charted new ways of declaring an authentic identity amid escalating Cold War fears of brainwashing and coercion. Facing pressure to celebrate a specific vision of Americanism, these converts variously attracted and repelled members of the American public. Whether the act of changing religions was viewed as selfish, reckless, or even unpatriotic, it provoked controversies that ultimately transformed American politics. Public Confessions takes intimate history to its widest relevance, and in so doing, makes you see yourself in both the private and public stories it tells.

In this Postscript, Susan Liebell and Lilly Goren review this morning’s U.S. Supreme Court decision in Texas SB-8, the oral arguments in last week’s Mississippi abortion case, and the wider issues of the Court’s legitimacy, electoral backlash, ripple effects beyond abortion to marriage equality or protection of sexuality, the effect of a ruling on electoral politics, and the effectiveness of grassroots organizing. We are joined by Dr. Rebecca Kreitzer (Associate Professor of Public Policy and Adjunct Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill), Dr. Andrew R. Lewis (Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Cincinnati) and Dr. Joshua C. Wilson (Professor of Political Science at the University of Denver).

Daniella Campos assisted with this podcast.

Lilly J. Goren is professor of political science at Carroll University in Waukesha, WI. Susan Liebell is Dirk Warren '50 Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph’s University in Philadelphia.

Reagan, Congress, and Human Rights: Contesting Morality in US Foreign Policy (Cambridge UP, 2020) traces the role of human rights concerns in US foreign policy during the 1980s, focusing on the struggle among the Reagan administration and members of Congress. It demonstrates how congressional pressure led the administration to reconsider its approach to human rights and craft a conservative human rights policy centered on democracy promotion and anti-communism - a decision which would have profound implications for American attention to human rights. Based on extensive archival research and interviews, Rasmus Sinding Søndergaard combines a comprehensive overview of human rights in American foreign relations with in-depth case studies of how human rights shaped US foreign policy toward Soviet Jewry, South African apartheid, and Nicaragua. Tracing the motivations behind human rights activism, this book demonstrates how liberals, moderates, and conservatives selectively invoked human rights to further their agendas, ultimately contributing to the establishment of human rights as a core moral language in US foreign policy.

Grant Golub is a PhD candidate in U.S. and international history at the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE). His research examines the politics of American grand strategy during World War II. Follow him on Twitter @ghgolub.

As people reach for social justice and better lives, they create public goods--free education, public health, open parks, clean water, and many others--that must be kept out of the market. When private interests take over, they strip public goods of their power to lift people up, creating instead a tool to diminish democracy, further inequality, and separate us from each other. 

The Privatization of Everything: How the Plunder of Public Goods Transformed America and How We Can Fight Back (New Press, 2021), by the founder of In the Public Interest, an organization dedicated to shared prosperity and the common good, chronicles the efforts to turn our public goods into private profit centers. The Privatization of Everything connects the dots across a broad spectrum of issues and raises larger questions about who controls the public things we all rely on, exposing the hidden crisis of privatization that has been slowly unfolding over the last fifty years and giving us a road map for taking our country back.

Stephen Pimpare is director of the Public Service & Nonprofit Leadership program and Faculty Fellow at the Carsey School of Public Policy at the University of New Hampshire.

Figures of the Future: Latino Civil Rights and the Politics of Demographic Change (Princeton UP, 2021) examines the “contemporary population politics of national Latino civil rights advocacy.” The book challenges readers to generally understand democratic projections as problematic, political, and manufactured -- and specifically consider the case of how prominent Latino civil rights groups used such projections during the Obama and Trump administrations to “accelerate the when of Latino political power.” Groups like UnidosUS, the League of United Latin American Citizens, and Voto Latino believed that they could mobilize demographic data about the growing Latino population to increase political recognition and respect -- hoping to unify and inspire. But Figures of the Future urges us to be attentive to the manner in which projected demographics can be “objects of aspiration” but also weaponized and sources of frustration. Deploying three main sources of data (participation observation, interviewing, and the collection of primary material) Dr. Michael Rodríguez-Muñiz asks us to see that “it is politics -- not demography -- that governs what we think and feel about ethnoracial demographic change.” We don’t need better data -- we need a more critical and vigilant eye to the political phenomenon.

Dr. Michael Rodríguez-Muñiz is an assistant professor of sociology and Latina/Latino studies at Northwestern University.

Daniella Campos assisted with and helped inspire this podcast.

Susan Liebell is Dirk Warren '50 Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph’s University in Philadelphia.

Political Scientists Amy Fried (University of Maine) and Douglas B. Harris (Loyola University Maryland) have a new book, At War with Government: How Conservatives Weaponized Distrust from Goldwater to Trump (Columbia UP, 2021), that looks at the question of distrust within American politics and how that distrust has moved from healthy skepticism to a weapon to be used to divide citizens and undermine the entire governmental system in the United States. Part of this is an historical examination, starting with the basic skepticism about power that was present in North America even before the Founding period. But the thrust of the book traces this distrust of government over the past half century, and highlights how it has become more overt, and more of a rhetorical tool used, in particular, by members of the Republican Party and the conservative movement.

Fried and Harris explain how this narrative of distrust in government has been used as an organizing umbrella for the contemporary Republican Party, as the strategic glue that holds together social conservatives, economic conservatives and libertarians, and national security hawks. This is the same organizing umbrella that was also implemented by politicians, especially in the use of the Southern Strategy, to pull the southern states into the Republican coalition over the past half century. This weaponization of distrust has been used, as the authors, note, in four different areas that can be seen again and again across historical periods during the last fifty years; these four areas include building organization, winning elections, securing policy gains, and moving functional power into the political institutions when they are controlled by the GOP. This use of distrust has also been woven into the conservative political identity, pulling in racial components and advocacy against the government itself to continue to build this political coalition. Fried and Harris make use of a lot of different archival sources to examine and explain how conservative elites have used this distrust strategically to help turn out voters, build the political organization, and construct a rhetorical narrative that indicts the American political system. At War with Government: How Conservatives Weaponized Distrust from Goldwater to Trump helps to explain not only the rise of Donald Trump, but also the asymmetrical polarization in which voters now find themselves in the U.S. system, and how Trump and those who preceded him capitalized on American distrust of and skepticism towards government.

Lilly J. Goren is professor of political science at Carroll University in Waukesha, WI. She is co-editor of the award winning book, Women and the White House: Gender, Popular Culture, and Presidential Politics (University Press of Kentucky, 2012), as well as co-editor of Mad Men and Politics: Nostalgia and the Remaking of Modern America (Bloomsbury Academic, 2015). Email her comments at [email protected] or tweet to @gorenlj.

Phantoms of a Beleaguered Republic: The Deep State and the Unitary Executive (Oxford University Press, 2021) powerfully dissects one of the fundamental problems in American governance today: the clash between presidents determined to redirect the nation through ever-tighter control of administration and an executive branch still organized to promote shared interests in steady hands, due deliberation, and expertise.

As the nation's chief executive, Donald Trump pitted himself repeatedly against the institutions and personnel of the executive branch. In the process, two once-obscure concepts came center stage in an eerie faceoff. On one side was the specter of a Deep State conspiracy-administrators threatening to thwart the will of the people and undercut the constitutional authority of the president they elected to lead them. On the other side was a raw personalization of presidential power, one that a theory of the unitary executive gussied up and allowed to run roughshod over reason and the rule of law. The Deep State and the unitary executive framed every major contest of the Trump presidency. Like phantom twins, they drew each other out and wrestled to light basic issues of governance long suppressed.

Though this conflict reached a fever pitch during the Trump presidency, it is not new. Stephen Skowronek, John A. Dearborn, and Desmond King trace the tensions between presidential power and the depth of the American state back through the decades and forward through the various settlements arrived at in previous eras. Phantoms of a Beleaguered Republic is about the breakdown of settlements and the abiding vulnerabilities of a Constitution that gave scant attention to administrative power. Rather than simply dump on Trump, the authors provide a richly historical perspective on the conflicts that rocked his presidency, and they explain why, if left untamed, the phantom twins will continue to pull the American government apart.

Stephen Skowronek is the Pelatiah Perit Professor of Political and Social Science at Yale University. 

John A. Dearborn is an Assistant Professor of Political Science and Carolyn T. and Robert M. Rogers Dean's Faculty Fellow at Vanderbilt University.

Desmond King is the Andrew W Mellon Professor of Government at the University of Oxford.

Kirk Meighoo is Public Relations Officer for the United National Congress, the Official Opposition in Trinidad and Tobago. His career has spanned media, academia, and politics for three decades.

Steven P. Brown, professor of political science at Auburn University, has written a history of notable U.S. Supreme Cases and justices that hailed from Alabama. In Alabama Justice: The Cases and Faces That Changed a Nation (U Alabama Press, 2020), Brown reviews eight landmark cases which originated in Alabama and were eventually reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court. Although most of these cases were reflective of the civil rights issues endemic to Alabama and other states in the American South of the mid-twentieth century, not all are race related. For example, a notable gender equity case, Frontiero v. Richardson, which was concerned with benefits discrimination based on gender, was an important decision in the history of women’s rights. Brown also reviews the lives and times of three Supreme Court justices, John McKinley, John Archibald Campbell, and Hugo Black.

Ian J. Drake is Associate Professor of Jurisprudence, Montclair State University.

An earlier Postscript explained what was at stake for concealed carry laws in a case before the U.S. Supreme Court – and guessed at what the oral arguments might reveal. Now that arguments have been heard in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, three legal scholars join the podcast to analyze the oral argument. Even if you are not a SCOTUS junky -- this conversation is important because 80 million (or 25% of) Americans may have their democratically crafted gun laws overturned by the decision of 9 justices.

Jacob D. Charles is the Executive Director & Lecturing Fellow at the Center for Firearms Law at Duke University School of Law. His work on the Second Amendment has appeared in numerous law journals and “Securing Gun Rights By Statute: The Right To Keep and Bear Arms Outside the Constitution,” (forthcoming, University of Michigan Law Review) interrogates the non-constitutional gun rights that create broad powers for gun owners beyond the Second Amendment. His extensive public-facing scholarship includes a new piece in the Washington Post’s Monkey Cage, “Supreme Court justices sounded suspicious of New York’s gun law. Here’s what might come next.”

Eric Ruben is an assistant professor of Law at SMU Dedman School of Law and a Brennan Center fellow. Working at the intersection of criminal law, legal ethics, and the Second Amendment, his scholarship has been published in law reviews such as California, Duke and Georgetown as well as public facing outlets like The Atlantic, New York Times, Vox, Jurist, The Conversation, and Scotusblog. He organized -- and contributed scholarship to the 2021 Brennan Center Report, Protests, Insurrection, and the Second Amendment.

Joseph Blocher is the Lanty L. Smith ’67 Professor of Law at Duke University School of Law and one of the attorneys who helped write the brief for DC in Heller. He co-authored The Positive Second Amendment: Rights, Regulation, and the Future of Heller (Cambridge University Press, 2018) with Darrell Miller in 2018 (New Books interview here). Among his numerous law review articles is “When Guns Threaten the Public Sphere: A New Account of Public Safety Regulation Under Heller” (Northwestern University Law Review, Vol 116, 2021) in which he and Reva Siegel interrogate the impact of gun rights on free speech. Recently, he has been a guest on the podcast Strict Scrutiny, contributed to the New York Times and NPR reporting of the case.

Joseph and Eric’s recent op ed, “No, courts don’t treat the Second Amendment as a ‘second-class right’: The latest gun-rights case may hinge on some conservatives’ sense of victimhood” just appeared in the Washington Post.

Susan Liebell is Dirk Warren '50 Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph’s University in Philadelphia.