This book offers an explanation for the extreme polarization between liberal and conservative that is the hallmark of the American political landscape today.

Who is America’s most important president? Unsurprisingly, the liberal media ranked Donald Trump close to the bottom. In fact, Trump arguably competes for the top slot. The reason for this is that his presidency was foundationally concerned with the nature of America itself, and what the America of the future will be like. Will America continue to be America, or will it morph into something very different, into a liberal coalition of weird minority groups that have no love of American history and the conventional idea of what it is to be an American, and no physical resemblance to the Americans of old. Trump brought to light the decisive issue of our times – how to define America. Should a nation be defined by inclusion, as liberals want, or by exclusion, as conservatives desire. When you strip back all of the squabbles between the Democrats and the Republicans, the liberals and the conservatives, you arrive at one theme, endlessly repeated: should the “Other” be regarded as a friend we haven’t met yet, as someone we need to embrace as rapidly, warmly and fully as possible (as the liberals would have it), or as an enemy we have luckily avoided thus far, as someone we actively need to shut out, as rapidly, coldly and comprehensively as possible (as the conservatives would have it). Is the Other to be included or excluded? It’s that simple. Or that complex. People who think this question has an easy answer are deluded. To welcome or not to welcome the Other comes down to where a person stands on the subject of sameness versus difference. Is difference always an enemy, a threat, and sameness always non-threatening, a friend? Or is difference the means by which we make progress and sameness something regressive? So, here we all here. Whither America? Will America look anything like itself a hundred years from now? Or will it seem like a different country, a country unrecognizable to conservatives? It’s all to play for. Who will win the Clusion Wars? To include or to exclude, that is the definitive question of our times.

An essential toolkit for all progressives- helping them to respond to the current sustained right-wing criticism of US domestic and foreign policy "The game is begun," Rush Limbaugh said, the day after Barack Obama won the presidency; and he was right. The clash of views on US domestic and foreign policy is, if anything, even more intense now than it was before the change of leadership in Washington. Right-wing media figures and Republican politicians regularly regale us with conservative criticisms of the realignment of policy and politics now underway. Even more than in 2008, now is the time for liberals to answer back, to counter those criticisms by both recognizing their content and locating their weaknesses. In the great clash of parties and philosophies that will shape the next American century, an informed citizenry will require more accurate information, ideas, and arguments than right-wing radio characteristically provides, and the market is wide open for a book that engages with both the worst and the best of the Republican case. Answering Back is that book. Answering Back intends to lift the quality of political discourse in the United States by bringing together the best conservative and the best liberal arguments on the eight key policy issues now in contention between the parties: trickledown economics and the role of public spending, the desirability of welfare reform, the future of social security, the establishment of health care for all, the possibility of comprehensive immigration control, religious issues and the social agenda, the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the causes of the financial meltdown. Each chapter begins with a brief introduction, followed by conservative views and a point-by-point progressive response. Each stage of each argument is labeled for easy memorization, and the language used is deliberately jargon free, to make the material as accessible as possible. The sources of both conservative and progressive arguments (and their supporting evidence) are cited to open the door to further research. Answering Back is a completely revised and expanded version of A Liberal Tookit, intially published by Praeger in 2007. This new version is a handbook of arguments, data, and sources that present today's key policy debates in an even-handed and accessible manner. This will be an essential tool for anyone interested in policy reform, party politics, and American politics. It is written in a manner that is, at one and the same time, scholarly, useful, accessible, and fun!

A new theoretical analysis of the rise of Donald Trump, Marine le Pen, Nigel Farage, Geert Wilders, Silvio Berlusconi, and Viktor Orbán.

This book is an eye-opening account of transnational advocacy, not by environmental and rights groups, but by conservative activists. Mobilizing around diverse issues, these networks challenge progressive foes across borders and within institutions. In these globalized battles, opponents struggle as much to advance their own causes as to destroy their rivals. Deploying exclusionary strategies, negative tactics and dissuasive ideas, they aim both to make and unmake policy. In this work, Clifford Bob chronicles combat over homosexuality and gun control in the UN, the Americas, Europe and elsewhere. He investigates the 'Baptist-burqa' network of conservative believers attacking gay rights, and the global gun coalition blasting efforts to control firearms. Bob draws critical conclusions about norms, activists and institutions, and his broad findings extend beyond the culture wars. They will change how campaigners fight, scholars study policy wars, and all of us think about global politics.

Liberalism is doomed to failure, John Kekes argues in this penetrating criticism of its basic assumptions. Liberals favor individual autonomy, a wide plurality of choices, and equal rights and resources, seeing them as essential for good lives. They oppose such evils as selfishness, intolerance, cruelty, and greed. Yet the more autonomy, equality, and pluralism there is, Kekes contends, the greater is the scope for evil. According to Kekes, liberalism is inconsistent because the conditions liberals regard as essential for good lives actually foster the very evils liberals want to avoid, and avoiding those evils depends on conditions contrary to the ones liberals favor. Kekes argues further that the liberal conceptions of equality, justice, and pluralism require treating good and evil people with equal respect, distributing resources without regard to what recipients deserve, and restricting choices to those that conform to liberal preconceptions. All these policies are detrimental to good lives. Kekes concludes that liberalism cannot cope with the prevalence of evil, that it is vitiated by inconsistent commitments, and that—contrary to its aim—liberalism is an obstacle to good lives.