How did party opposition become a regular and "normal" feature of the American political landscape? Jeffrey S. Selinger tells a story of political transformation in the United States and offers a much-needed historical perspective on the challenges of governance in a polarized nation.

An eminent psychologist explains why dissent should be cherished, not feared We've decided by consensus that consensus is good. In In Defense of Troublemakers, psychologist Charlan Nemeth argues that this principle is completely wrong: left unchallenged, the majority opinion is often biased, unoriginal, or false. It leads planes and markets to crash, causes juries to convict innocent people, and can quite literally make people think blue is green. In the name of comity, we embrace stupidity. We can make better decisions by embracing dissent. Dissent forces us to question the status quo, consider more information, and engage in creative decision-making. From Twelve Angry Men to Edward Snowden, lone objectors who make people question their assumptions bring groups far closer to truth -- regardless of whether they are right or wrong. Essential reading for anyone who works in groups, In Defense of Troublemakers will radically change the way you think, listen, and make decisions.

The modern American president combines two roles historically thought to be incommensurable. He is both an executive and a party leader, at once responsible for the sovereignty of the republic and the fortunes of his party. The first generation of American presidents, from George Washington to John Quincy Adams, assumed an anti-partisan pose because they believed, often with good reason, that the central state was not capable of preserving the Union from the excesses of party conflict. Republican government, for the Founders, was simply unthinkable in terms of party.

An eminent psychologist explains why dissent should be cherished, not feared We've decided by consensus that consensus is good. In In Defense of Troublemakers, psychologist Charlan Nemeth argues that this principle is completely wrong: left unchallenged, the majority opinion is often biased, unoriginal, or false. It leads planes and markets to crash, causes juries to convict innocent people, and can quite literally make people think blue is green. In the name of comity, we embrace stupidity. We can make better decisions by embracing dissent. Dissent forces us to question the status quo, consider more information, and engage in creative decision-making. From Twelve Angry Men to Edward Snowden, lone objectors who make people question their assumptions bring groups far closer to truth-regardless of whether they are right or wrong. Essential reading for anyone who works in groups, In Defense of Troublemakers will radically change the way you think, listen, and make decisions.

The objective of this Book is to show that conceptualizing democracy in terms of "agonism" best addresses the ills of post-democracy. I characterize post-democracy as a democratic order that has all the trappings of democracy, including multi-party elections, but which has been enmeshed in a particular discourse or discourses that have become hegemonic. This has the effect of effacing real political difference as though various political actors in a democratic order might be different in word and name, they converge on major policy points. To show agonistic democracy as the best conception, I compare and contrast it to deliberative democracy. Briefly, deliberative democracy emphasizes rational argument and reaching consensus, whereas agonistic democracy valorizes fierce political conflict between competing hegemonic projects. I argue that an emphasis on consensus does not address the specific nature of the post-democratic age, while a valorization of fierce conflict ensures the facilitation of real political difference requisite for a vibrant democratic politics. Focusing on Chantal Mouffe's conception of agonistic democracy, I identify some limitations which I attempt to overcome, namely her insistence on a form of consensus by which fierce political conflict should be bounded in order to stabilize democratic confrontations. I argue that it is possible to envision agonistic democracy in a purely procedural way, without any such consensus. Recognizing post-democracy to be a worrying reality in contemporary democratic societies, and the growing dissatisfaction with this situation, I believe democracy requires serious re-examination. This Book does exactly that.

Americans should not just tolerate dissent. They should encourage it. In this provocative and wide-ranging book, Steven Shiffrin makes this case by arguing that dissent should be promoted because it lies at the heart of a core American value: free speech. He contends, however, that the country's major institutions--including the Supreme Court and the mass media--wrongly limit dissent. And he reflects on how society and the law should change to encourage nonconformity. Shiffrin is one of the country's leading first-amendment theorists. He advances his dissent-based theory of free speech with careful reference to its implications for such controversial topics of constitutional debate as flag burning, cigarette advertising, racist speech, and subsidizing the arts. He shows that a dissent-based approach would offer strong protection for free speech--he defends flag burning as a legitimate form of protest, for example--but argues that it would still allow for certain limitations on activities such as hate speech and commercial speech. Shiffrin adds that a dissent-based approach reveals weaknesses in the approaches to free speech taken by postmodernism, Republicanism, deliberative democratic theory, outsider jurisprudence, and liberal theory. Throughout the book, Shiffrin emphasizes the social functions of dissent: its role in combating injustice and its place in cultural struggles over the meanings of America. He argues, for example, that if we took a dissent-based approach to free speech seriously, we would no longer accept the unjust fact that public debate is dominated by the voices of the powerful and the wealthy. To ensure that more voices are heard, he argues, the country should take such steps as making defamation laws more hospitable to criticism of powerful people, loosening the grip of commercial interests on the media, and ensuring that young people are taught the importance of challenging injustice. Powerfully and clearly argued, Shiffrin's book is a major contribution to debate about one of the most important subjects in American public life.

First published in 1996. As recently as the early 1990s, people wondered what was the future of cultural studies in the United States and what effects its increasing internationalization might have. What type of projects would cultural studies inspire people to undertake? Would established disciplines welcome its presence and adapt their practices accordingly? Disciplinarity and Dissent in Cultural Studies answers such questions. It is now clear that, while striking and innovative work is underway in many different fields, most disciplinary organizations and structures have been very resistant to cultural studies. Meanwhile, cultural studies has been subjected to repeated attacks by conservative journalists and commentators in the public sphere. Cultural studies scholars have responded not only by mounting focused critiques of the politics of knowledge but also by embracing ambitious projects of social, political, and cultural commentary, by transgressing all the official boundaries of knowledge in a broad quest for cultural understanding. This book tracks these debates and maps future strategies for cultural studies in academia and public life. The contributors to Disciplinarity and Dissent in Cultural Studies include established scholars and new voices. In a series of polemic and exploratory essays written especially for this book, they track the struggle with cultural studies in disciplines like anthropology, literature and history; and between cultural studies and very different domains like Native American culture and the culture of science. Contributors include Arjun Appadurai, Michael Denning, Lawrence Grossberg, Cary Nelson, Constance Penley, Andrew Ross, and Lynn Spigel.