The Nationalization Paradox

In a campaign for state or local office these days, you’re as likely today to hear accusations that an opponent advanced Obamacare or supported Donald Trump as you are to hear about issues affecting the state or local community. This is because American political behavior has become substantially more nationalized. American voters are far more engaged with and knowledgeable about what’s happening in Washington, DC, than in similar messages whether they are in the South, the Northeast, or the Midwest. Gone are the days when all politics was local. With The Increasingly United States, Daniel J. Hopkins explores this trend and its implications for the American political system. The change is significant in part because it works against a key rationale of America’s federalist system, which was built on the assumption that citizens would be more strongly attached to their states and localities. It also has profound implications for how voters are represented. If voters are well informed about state politics, for example, the governor has an incentive to deliver what voters—or at least a pivotal segment of them—want. But if voters are likely to back the same party in gubernatorial as in presidential elections irrespective of the governor’s actions in office, governors may instead come to see their ambitions as tethered more closely to their status in the national party.

In spite of its numerous obvious failures, many presidential candidates and voters are in favor of a socialist system for the United States. Socialism is consistent with our primitive evolved preferences, but not with a modern complex economy. One reason for the desire for socialism is the misinterpretation of capitalism. The standard definition of free market capitalism is that it’s a system based on unbridled competition. But this oversimplification is incredibly misleading—capitalism exists because human beings have organically developed an elaborate system based on trust and collaboration that allows consumers, producers, distributors, financiers, and the rest of the players in the capitalist system to thrive. Paul Rubin, the world’s leading expert on cooperative capitalism, explains simply and powerfully how we should think about markets, economics, and business—making this book an indispensable tool for understanding and communicating the vast benefits the free market bestows upon societies and individuals.

Explores how dictators maintain their grip on power by seizing control of oil, metals, and minerals production.

“Paradoxes of Populism” argues that populism, far-from-random similarities with ordinary manifestations of nationalism, should be approached not as a venture into the classical structures of nation-states and identities, but as a disruptive and destabilizing consequence of some of the constituent elements of sovereign nation-states becoming eroded and prised apart by contextual global processes and their agents. The book demonstrates that populism, in its many varieties, is riddled with even more paradoxes and inconsistencies than mainstream nationalism itself––confusing causes and appearances, realities and fantasies and turning the world inside out. This book definitively engages with real-world challenges that the age of populism, the Second Coming of Nationalism, poses in liberal democracies states as well as their political and cultural interpretations in the populist fantasia.

Compares modern U.S. politics with the postwar system and discusses presidential elections, special interest groups, the bureaucracy, and political parties

This title explores paradoxical perceptions about Austria in regard to its approach to immigration, the EU and historical events.

According to Benedict Anderson, the rapid expansion of print media during the late-1700s popularised national history and standardised national languages, thus helping create nation-states and national identities at the expense of the old empires. Publishing in Tsarist Russia challenges this theory and, by examining the history of Russian publishing through a transnational lens, reveals how the popular press played an important and complex Imperial role, while providing a “soft infrastructure” which the subjects could access to change Imperial order. As this volume convincingly argues, this is because the Russian language at this time was a lingua franca; it crossed borders and boundaries, reaching speakers of varying nationalities. Russian publications, then, were able to effectively operate within the structure of Imperialism but as a public space, they went beyond the control of the Tsar and ethnic Russians. This exciting international team of scholars provide a much-needed, fresh take on the history of Russian publishing and contribute significantly to our understanding of print media, language and empire from the 18th to 20th centuries. Publishing in Tsarist Russia is therefore a vital resource for scholars of Russian history, comparative nationalism, and publishing studies.