A deep examination of why respect is in short supply in politics today and why it matters. Respect is in trouble in the United States. Many Americans believe respecting others is a necessary virtue, yet many struggle to respect opposing partisans. Surprisingly, it is liberal citizens, who hold respect as central to their view of democratic equality, who often have difficulty granting respect to others. Drawing on evidence from national surveys, focus groups, survey experiments, and the views of political theorists, Jeff Spinner-Halev and Elizabeth Theiss-Morse explain why this is and why respect is vital to—and yet so lacking in—contemporary US politics. Respect and Loathing in American Democracy argues that liberals and conservatives are less divided than many believe, but alienate one another because they moralize different issues. Liberals moralize social justice, conservatives champion national solidarity, and this worldview divide keeps them at odds. Respect is both far-reaching and vital, yet it is much harder to grant than many recognize, partly because of the unseen tension between respect, social justice, and national solidarity. Respect and Loathing in American Democracy proposes a path forward that, while challenging, is far from impossible for citizens to traverse.

"Respect is in trouble in American politics. Many Americans think that respecting other citizens is a virtue of a democratic society, yet many struggle to respect opposing partisans. It is especially liberal citizens, who hold respect as central to their robust view of democratic equality, who struggle the most granting respect to others. In Respect and Loathing in American Democracy, political theorist Jeff Spinner-Halev and political psychologist Elizabeth Theiss-Morse team up to explain why respect is important to democracy and yet so lacking in contemporary US politics. Drawing on evidence from extensive focus groups, national surveys, survey experiments, and the views of political theorists, Spinner-Halev and Theiss-Morse develop a theoretical framework that places respect squarely in the context of a polarized United States. They elucidate how clashing, moralized worldviews undergird partisan conflict and shape its character and intensity. The authors argue that liberals and conservatives are less divided on issues than many believe, but they are divided on which issues they moralize. That liberals moralize their social justice worldview and conservatives their national solidarity worldview makes it hard for them to grant respect to each other, despite so many people believing in the importance of respect. The authors differentiate between two types of respect and distinguish respect from tolerance. Respect is both far reaching and difficult to give in ways that many citizens and theorists fail to recognize. Deep-seated tension exists between respect and justice, and political theorists and citizens alike need to acknowledge that tension. Spinner-Halev and Theiss-Morse argue that respect is connected to pluralism, and propose a possible path forward that is challenging but far from impossible for scholars and citizens to traverse"--

Liberalism has traditionally been equated with protecting the rights of the individual. But how does this protection affect the cultural identity of these individuals? In The Boundaries of Citizenship Jeff Spinner addresses this question by examining distinctive racial, ethnic, and national groups whose identities may be transformed in liberal society. Focusing on the Amish, Hasidic Jews, and African Americans in the United States and on the Quebecois in Canada, Spinner explores the paradox of how liberal values such as equality and individual autonomy—which members of cultural groups often fight to attain—can lead to the unexpected transformation of the group's identity. Spinner shows how liberalism fosters this transformation by encouraging the dispersal of the group's cultural practices throughout society. He examines why groups that reject the liberal values of equality and autonomy are the most successful at retaining their distinctive cultural identity. He finds, however, that these groups also fit—albeit uneasily—in the liberal state. Spinner concludes that citizens are benefitted more than harmed by liberalism's tendency to alter cultural boundaries. The Boundaries of Citizenship is a timely look at how cultural identities are formed and transformed—and why the political implications of this process are so important. The book will be of interest to readers in a broad range of academic disciplines, including political science, law, history, sociology, and cultural studies.

This single volume work examines whether class political divisions have increased or decreased over time in America. Most studies have concluded that class differences have declined, and that Democrats have alienated their electoral base--the working class. However, counter to these scholarly and pundit mainstream, in Class and Party in American Po

Polarization is at an all-time high in the United States. But contrary to popular belief, Americans are polarized not so much in their policy preferences as in their feelings toward their political opponents: To an unprecedented degree, Republicans and Democrats simply do not like one another. No surprise that these deeply held negative feelings are central to the recent (also unprecedented) plunge in congressional productivity. The past three Congresses have gotten less done than any since scholars began measuring congressional productivity. In Why Washington Won’t Work, Marc J. Hetherington and Thomas J. Rudolph argue that a contemporary crisis of trust—people whose party is out of power have almost no trust in a government run by the other side—has deadlocked Congress. On most issues, party leaders can convince their own party to support their positions. In order to pass legislation, however, they must also create consensus by persuading some portion of the opposing party to trust in their vision for the future. Without trust, consensus fails to develop and compromise does not occur. Up until recently, such trust could still usually be found among the opposition, but not anymore. Political trust, the authors show, is far from a stable characteristic. It’s actually highly variable and contingent on a variety of factors, including whether one’s party is in control, which part of the government one is dealing with, and which policies or events are most salient at the moment. Political trust increases, for example, when the public is concerned with foreign policy—as in times of war—and it decreases in periods of weak economic performance. Hetherington and Rudolph do offer some suggestions about steps politicians and the public might take to increase political trust. Ultimately, however, they conclude that it is unlikely levels of political trust will significantly increase unless foreign concerns come to dominate and the economy is consistently strong.

This is a thematically unified survey of current and significant issues affecting interest group politics and scholarship in the USA. Petracca has drawn together interest group scholars and practitioners to write 16 original essays dedicated to making the best and newest research accessable to students at all levels. The mix of perspectives and approaches aims to offer a stimulating analysis of contemporary American interest group activity.