Desmond King – författare

Spanning the entire twentieth century and encompassing immigration policies, the nationalistic fallout from both world wars, the civil rights movement, and nation-building efforts in the postcolonial era, The Liberty of Strangers advances a major new interpretation of American nationalism and the future prospects for diverse democracies. Tracing how Americans have confronted and relinquished, but mostly clung to group identities over the past century, Desmond King here debunks one of the guiding assumptions of American nationhood, namely that group distinction and identification would gradually dissolve over time, creating a "postethnic" nation. The divisions in American society have consistently proven themselves too strong to dissolve and, for better or for worse, the often-disparaged politics of multiculturalism are here to stay, with profound implications for America's democracy.

"In this landmark book, Desmond King reveals and corrects a glaring gap at the epicenter of studies of racial inequality and political development in the United States: their blindness to the pivotal role of the state in making race. With historical precision and analytic rigor, he demonstrates how, for seven decades following the legal affirmation of the doctrine 'separate and equal' in 1896, the federal government both bolstered and expanded racial separation, in effect nationalizing the pattern of black subordination elaborated by Southern segregationists in the aftermath of abolition. The abiding social and symbolic marginality of the African American community in US society thus emerges, not as an inert legacy of slavery or a result of its alleged cultural failings, but as a creature of state policies studiously enforced by the federal bureaucracy until the 1960s. Enriched by a postscript that reviews and revises its core argument, this new edition of Separate and Unequal is one that every serious student of racial domination and comparative politics will want to read and engage."--Loïc Wacquant, University of California, Berkeley, and Centre de sociologie européenne, Paris Despite major strides in combating racial segregation and oppression since the Civil Rights movement, racial inequality remains a persistent and vexing problem in America today. At the forefront of recent scholarship highlighting the central influence of the US federal government on race relations well before the 1960s, Separate and Unequal uncovers, through archival research, how the federal government used its power to impose a segregated pattern of race relations among its employees and, through its programs, upon the whole of American society. In a new postscript to this revised edition, Desmond King places his original, groundbreaking analysis in the context of recent studies and connects the legacy of exclusionary programs and policies to current racial disparities in welfare reform, prisons, and education.

The complexity of the American economy and polity has grown at an explosive rate in our era of globalization. Yet as the 2008 financial crisis revealed, the evolution of the American state has not proceeded apace. The crisis exposed the system's manifold political and economic dysfunctionalities. Featuring a cast of leading scholars working at the intersection of political science and American history, The Unsustainable American State is a historically informed account of the American state's development from the nineteenth century to the present. It focuses in particular on the state-produced inequalities and administrative incoherence that became so apparent in the post-1970s era. Collectively, the book offers an unsettling account of the growth of racial and economic inequality, the ossification of the state, the gradual erosion of democracy, and the problems deriving from imperial overreach. Utilizing the framework of sustainability, a concept that is currently informing some of the best work on governance and development, the contributors show how the USA's current trajectory does not imply an impending collapse, but rather a gradual erosion of capacity and legitimacy. That is a more appropriate theoretical framework, they contend, because for all of its manifest flaws, the American state is durable. That durability, however, does not preclude a long relative decline.

The complexity of the American economy and polity has grown at an explosive rate in our era of globalization. Yet as the 2008 financial crisis revealed, the evolution of the American state has not proceeded apace. The crisis exposed the system's manifold political and economic dysfunctionalities. Featuring a cast of leading scholars working at the intersection of political science and American history, The Unsustainable American State is a historically informed account of the American state's development from the nineteenth century to the present. It focuses in particular on the state-produced inequalities and administrative incoherence that became so apparent in the post-1970s era. Collectively, the book offers an unsettling account of the growth of racial and economic inequality, the ossification of the state, the gradual erosion of democracy, and the problems deriving from imperial overreach. Utilizing the framework of sustainability, a concept that is currently informing some of the best work on governance and development, the contributors show how the USA's current trajectory does not imply an impending collapse, but rather a gradual erosion of capacity and legitimacy. That is a more appropriate theoretical framework, they contend, because for all of its manifest flaws, the American state is durable. That durability, however, does not preclude a long relative decline.

A powerful dissection of 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.President 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.These conflicts are 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.

An eye-opening analysis of the Federal Reserve's massive and unwarranted power in American life and how it favors the financial sector over everyone else.The Federal Reserve, created more than a century ago, is the most powerful central bank in the world. The Fed's power, which derives from its ability to alter the money supply and move interest rates, weighs heavily not only on the US economy, but on the world economy as well. Lawrence R. Jacobs and Desmond King's Fed Power is the first sustained synthesis of the Fed's political role--especially the way in which it uses its power to benefit some interest groups and not others--since the 2008 financial crisis. In this fully updated and revised second edition, Fed Power addresses new developments during Trump's presidency--particularly the Fed's massive and unprecedented injection of liquidity into the US economy following the COVID epidemic-and offers fresh insights on the Fed's outsized role in picking winners and losers in the American economy. King and Jacobs conclude with bold proposals to reform America's financial management to prevent future crises and to restore democratic accountability. A powerful critique of how the Federal Reserve governs the American economy, Fed Power will be essential reading for anyone interested in the role that the Fed's policies have played in increasing economic and racial inequality across both the Obama and Trump presidencies and the new directions pursued by the Biden administration and progressive activists.

An eye-opening analysis of the Federal Reserve's massive and unwarranted power in American life and how it favors the financial sector over everyone else.The Federal Reserve, created more than a century ago, is the most powerful central bank in the world. The Fed's power, which derives from its ability to alter the money supply and move interest rates, weighs heavily not only on the US economy, but on the world economy as well. Lawrence R. Jacobs and Desmond King's Fed Power is the first sustained synthesis of the Fed's political role--especially the way in which it uses its power to benefit some interest groups and not others--since the 2008 financial crisis. In this fully updated and revised second edition, Fed Power addresses new developments during Trump's presidency--particularly the Fed's massive and unprecedented injection of liquidity into the US economy following the COVID epidemic-and offers fresh insights on the Fed's outsized role in picking winners and losers in the American economy. King and Jacobs conclude with bold proposals to reform America's financial management to prevent future crises and to restore democratic accountability. A powerful critique of how the Federal Reserve governs the American economy, Fed Power will be essential reading for anyone interested in the role that the Fed's policies have played in increasing economic and racial inequality across both the Obama and Trump presidencies and the new directions pursued by the Biden administration and progressive activists.

A powerful dissection of 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.President 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.These conflicts are 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. Now, in this expanded paperback edition, they address the tumultuous Trump-Biden transition and reflect more broadly on the problems of presidential democracy in America today.

Politically independent central banks such as America's Federal Reserve have enormous sway over the financial lives of citizens globally and often affect citizens differently according to their wealth. In Picking Winners, editors Lawrence R. Jacobs and Desmond King curate a selection of chapters with innovative theoretical frameworks and new research about political institutions and organized interests to demonstrate that central banks and financial regulators are not neutral servants of the "public good." The research introduced here spans several countries and includes findings from interviews with senior government officials and financiers. In Picking Winners, the contributors reveal how theoretically independent central banks and financial regulators are often swayed instead, by deeply resourced financial interests, the values and perspectives of capital over those of wage earners, and institutional designs that are biased to favor those with greater capital and income.

Politically independent central banks such as America's Federal Reserve have enormous sway over the financial lives of citizens globally and often affect citizens differently according to their wealth. In Picking Winners, editors Lawrence R. Jacobs and Desmond King curate a selection of chapters with innovative theoretical frameworks and new research about political institutions and organized interests to demonstrate that central banks and financial regulators are not neutral servants of the "public good." The research introduced here spans several countries and includes findings from interviews with senior government officials and financiers. In Picking Winners, the contributors reveal how theoretically independent central banks and financial regulators are often swayed instead, by deeply resourced financial interests, the values and perspectives of capital over those of wage earners, and institutional designs that are biased to favor those with greater capital and income.

Rational choice theory has gained considerable influence in politics and sociology over the past thirty years. The use of rational choice methods has proliferated in all areas of social inquiry. From the early days as formal proofs and unrealistic assumptions, rational choice is increasingly being used to model authentic situations and institutions. This collection of essays from leading British writers in the rational choice paradigm concentrates upon the two key aspects of rational choice: the role of preferences and institutions. The essays encompass both theoretical inquiries and empirical analyses.This volume is a vital addition to growing literature on the problems and the application of rational choice in social inquiry.

Why have British and North American governments adopted illiberal social policies during this century? In the Name of Liberalism investigates examples of social policy in Britain and the United States that conflict with liberal democratic ideals. The book examines the use of eugenic arguments in the 1920s and 1930s, the use of work camps in the 1930s as a response to mass unemployment and the introduction of work-for-welfare programs since the 1980s. The book argues that existing accounts of American and British political development neglect how illiberal social policies are intertwined in the creation of modern liberal democratic institutions. Such policies are, paradoxically, justified in terms of the liberal democratic framework itself. In the light of the books research, the author suggests that there is a need to know more about the internal workings of democracies to justify the claim that liberal democracy represents the most attractive set of political institutions.

Why have British and North American governments adopted illiberal social policies during this century? In the Name of Liberalism investigates examples of social policy in Britain and the United States that conflict with liberal democratic ideals. The book examines the use of eugenic arguments in the 1920s and 1930s, the use of work camps in the 1930s as a response to mass unemployment and the introduction of work-for-welfare programs since the 1980s. The book argues that existing accounts of American and British political development neglect how illiberal social policies are intertwined in the creation of modern liberal democratic institutions. Such policies are, paradoxically, justified in terms of the liberal democratic framework itself. In the light of the books research, the author suggests that there is a need to know more about the internal workings of democracies to justify the claim that liberal democracy represents the most attractive set of political institutions.

Reconfiguring European States in Crisis offers a ground-breaking analysis by some of Europe's leading political scientists, examining how the European national state and the European Union state have dealt with two sorts of changes in the last two decades. Firstly, the volume analyses the growth of performance measurement in government, the rise of new sorts of policy delivery agencies, the devolution of power to regions and cities, and the spread of neoliberal ideas in economic policy. The volume demonstrates how the rise of non-state controlled organizations and norms combine with Europeanization to reconfigure European states. Secondly, the volume focuses on how the current crises in fiscal policy, Brexit, security and terrorism, and migration through a borderless European Union have had dramatic effects on European states and will continue to do so.

This collection examines the foreign and domestic policies of President George W Bush's administration. The analysis begins with an account of how highly polarized - in terms of public opinion and electoral patterns - this presidency has proved to be (in a chapter by the editors). This is followed by chapters on the use of unilateral executive powers (by Louis Fisher and William Howell) and pre-rogative powers (by Richard Pious). Because the policy choices of the Bush presidency have had such fundamental effects both in domestic policy and in US foreign policy, three contributors (Thomas Langston, John Burke, James Pfiffner) then address the processes of decision making especially in respect to the war against Iraq. How the administration governs by a recurring process of campaigning is examined in chapters on public opinion and war (by Gary Jacobson), the promotional presidency (by Larry Jacobs), mobilizing congressional support for war (by Scott Blinder) and the White House communications system (by Martha Kumar). Finally the way in which the Bush White House relates to congress and the process of building congressional coalitions to enact laws is the subject of chapters on 'executive style' of this administration (by Charles O Jones) and the failure to reform social security (by Fiona Ross). It will be essential reading for anyone wishing to understand one of the most controversial administrations in recent years.

Forging a Discipline analyses the growth of the academic discipline of politics and international relations at Oxford University over the last hundred years. This century marked the maturation and professionalization of social science disciplines such as political science, economics, and sociology in the world's leading universities. The Oxford story of teaching and research in politics provides one case study of this transformation, and the contributors aim to use its specifics better to understand this general process. In their introductory and concluding chapters the Editors argue that Oxford is a critical case to consider because several aspects of the university and its organization seem, at first glance, to militate against disciplinary development and growth. Oxford's institutional structure in which colleges enjoyed autonomy from the central university until quite recently, its proximity to the practice of government and politics through the supply of a steady stream of senior administrators, politicians and prime ministers, and its emphasis on undergraduate teaching through intensive small group tutorials all distinguish the development of teaching and research on politics in the university from such competitors as Manchester or the LSE as explained in one of the contributions. These themes inform the book's chapters in which the contributors examine the founding of the first dedicated position in political science in the university, the study of the British Constitution and the development of electoral studies, the introduction and consolidation of international relations into the Oxford social science curriculum in contrast to the way in which war studies emerged, the commitment to research and teaching in political theory, the careful harvesting of area studies, particularly of Latin America and Eastern Europe including Russia, and the distinctive role of Oxford's two social science graduate colleges, Nuffield and St Antony's, in fostering a graduate programme of study and research. What emerges from these historically researched and analytical accounts is the surprising capacity of members of the politics discipline at Oxford to forge a leading place for their scholarly perspectives and research in such core parts of the discipline as political theory, the study of comparative politics as a subject rather than as an area, ideas about order in international relations and the scientific study of elections in Britain and comparatively. That these achievements occurred in a university lacking the formal system of hierarchy and, until the last decade, departmentalization makes this volume a valuable addition to studies of the professionalization of social science research and teaching in modern universities.

The 2010 election serves as a bookend to one of the remarkable political periods in recent U.S. history. Amidst a profound economic crisis, Americans elected an African American to the presidency and massive Democratic majorities to Congress. Beginning in 2009, the President and Congress put forward a sweeping agenda to both address the economic crisis and enact progressive policies that liberals had been advocating for decades. Within a year and a half, they would pass health care reform and financial reform alongside a stimulus package of nearly a trillion dollars. Democrats also rescued the auto industry via a partial government takeover and expanded the Bush administration's incipient program for saving the banking sector by pouring hundreds of billions of dollars into it. Finally, the Obama administration dramatically increased our commitment in Afghanistan while simultaneously winding down our presence in Iraq.In Obama at the Crossroads, eminent political scientists Desmond King and Larry Jacobs have gathered some of the best scholars in American politics to take stock of this extraordinary period. Covering the financial crisis, health care reform, racial politics, foreign policy, the nature of Obama's leadership, and the relationship between the administration's agenda and broader progressive goals, this will serve as a comprehensive overview of the key issues facing the Obama administration as it entered office.

Why have both Great Britain and the United States been unable to create effective training and work programmes for the unemployed? The author contends that the answer lies in the liberal political origins of these programmes. Integrating documentary materials with an analysis of the sources of political support for work-welfare programs, King shows that policy-makers in both Great Britain and the United States have tried to achieve conflicting goals through these programmes. The goal of work-welfare policy in both countries has been to provide financial aid, training and placement services for the unemployed. In order to muster support for these programmes, however, work-welfare programmes had to incorporate liberal requirements that they not interfere with private market forces, and that they prevent the "undeserving" from obtaining benefits. The attempt to integrate these incompatible functions is arguably the defining feature of British and American policies as well as the cause of their failure.

A sobering portrait of the United States’ divided racial politics.For nearly two decades, Rogers M. Smith and Desmond King have charted the shifting racial policy alliances that have shaped American politics across different eras. In America’s New Racial Battle Lines, they show that US racial policy debates are undergoing fundamental change. Disputes over colorblind versus race-conscious policies have given way to new lines of conflict. Today’s conservatives promise to protect traditionalist, predominantly white, Christian Americans against what they call the “radical” Left. Meanwhile, today’s progressives seek not just to integrate American institutions but to more fully transform and “repair” pervasive systemic racism. Drawing on interviews with activists, surveys, social network analyses, and comprehensive reviews of federal, state, and local policies and advocacy groups, Smith and King map the memberships and goals of two rival racial policy alliances and delineate the contrasting stories each side tells. They also show that these increasingly polarized racial policy alliances are substantially funded on both the Left and Right. Placing today’s conflicts in theoretical and historical perspectives, Smith and King analyze where these intensifying clashes may take the nation in the years ahead. They highlight the great potential for mounting violence, as well as the remaining possibilities for finding common ground.

A sobering portrait of the United States’ divided racial politics.For nearly two decades, Rogers M. Smith and Desmond King have charted the shifting racial policy alliances that have shaped American politics across different eras. In America’s New Racial Battle Lines, they show that US racial policy debates are undergoing fundamental change. Disputes over colorblind versus race-conscious policies have given way to new lines of conflict. Today’s conservatives promise to protect traditionalist, predominantly white, Christian Americans against what they call the “radical” Left. Meanwhile, today’s progressives seek not just to integrate American institutions but to more fully transform and “repair” pervasive systemic racism. Drawing on interviews with activists, surveys, social network analyses, and comprehensive reviews of federal, state, and local policies and advocacy groups, Smith and King map the memberships and goals of two rival racial policy alliances and delineate the contrasting stories each side tells. They also show that these increasingly polarized racial policy alliances are substantially funded on both the Left and Right. Placing today’s conflicts in theoretical and historical perspectives, Smith and King analyze where these intensifying clashes may take the nation in the years ahead. They highlight the great potential for mounting violence, as well as the remaining possibilities for finding common ground.

In the nineteenth century, virtually anyone could get into the United States. But by the 1920s, U.S. immigration policy had become a finely filtered regime of selection. Desmond King looks at this dramatic shift, and the debates behind it, for what they reveal about the construction of an "American" identity.Specifically, the debates in the three decades leading up to 1929 were conceived in terms of desirable versus undesirable immigrants. This not only cemented judgments about specific European groups but reinforced prevailing biases against groups already present in the United States, particularly African Americans, whose inferior status and second-class citizenship--enshrined in Jim Crow laws and embedded in pseudo-scientific arguments about racial classifications--appear to have been consolidated in these decades. Although the values of different groups have always been recognized in the United States, King gives the most thorough account yet of how eugenic arguments were used to establish barriers and to favor an Anglo-Saxon conception of American identity, rejecting claims of other traditions. Thus the immigration controversy emerges here as a significant precursor to recent multicultural debates.Making Americans shows how the choices made about immigration policy in the 1920s played a fundamental role in shaping democracy and ideas about group rights in America.

Why have American policies failed to reduce the racial inequalities still pervasive throughout the nation? Has President Barack Obama defined new political approaches to race that might spur unity and progress? "Still a House Divided" examines the enduring divisions of American racial politics and how these conflicts have been shaped by distinct political alliances and their competing race policies. Combining deep historical knowledge with a detailed exploration of such issues as housing, employment, criminal justice, multiracial census categories, immigration, voting in majority-minority districts, and school vouchers, Desmond King and Rogers Smith assess the significance of President Obama's election to the White House and the prospects for achieving constructive racial policies for America's future. Offering a fresh perspective on the networks of governing institutions, political groups, and political actors that influence the structure of American racial politics, King and Smith identify three distinct periods of opposing racial policy coalitions in American history.The authors investigate how today's alliances pit color-blind and race-conscious approaches against one another, contributing to political polarization and distorted policymaking. Contending that President Obama has so far inadequately confronted partisan divisions over race, the authors call for all sides to recognize the need for a balance of policy measures if America is to ever cease being a nation divided. Presenting a powerful account of American political alliances and their contending racial agendas, "Still a House Divided" sheds light on a policy path vital to the country's future.

Why have American policies failed to reduce the racial inequalities still pervasive throughout the nation? Has President Barack Obama defined new political approaches to race that might spur unity and progress? Still a House Divided examines the enduring divisions of American racial politics and how these conflicts have been shaped by distinct political alliances and their competing race policies. Combining deep historical knowledge with a detailed exploration of such issues as housing, employment, criminal justice, multiracial census categories, immigration, voting in majority-minority districts, and school vouchers, Desmond King and Rogers Smith assess the significance of President Obama's election to the White House and the prospects for achieving constructive racial policies for America's future. Offering a fresh perspective on the networks of governing institutions, political groups, and political actors that influence the structure of American racial politics, King and Smith identify three distinct periods of opposing racial policy coalitions in American history.The authors investigate how today's alliances pit color-blind and race-conscious approaches against one another, contributing to political polarization and distorted policymaking. Contending that President Obama has so far inadequately confronted partisan divisions over race, the authors call for all sides to recognize the need for a balance of policy measures if America is to ever cease being a nation divided. Presenting a powerful account of American political alliances and their contending racial agendas, Still a House Divided sheds light on a policy path vital to the country's future.

The essays in this volume examine democracy's development in the United States, demonstrating how that process has shaped-and continues to shape-the American political system. Scholars of American politics commonly describe the political development of the United States as exceptional and distinct from that of other advanced industrial democracies. They point to the United States as the longest-lived and most stable liberal democracy in history. What they often fail to mention, though, is that it took considerable time to extend democracy throughout the country. The contributors to this volume suggest that it is intellectually fruitful to consider the U.S. case in comparison to other countries. They argue that the development of democracy is ongoing in America; that even with a written constitution grounded in liberal democracy, the meaning and significance of U.S. democracy are still evolving.This volume shows that democratization and the pursuit of democracy are processes affected by multiple and continuing challenges-including such issues as citizenship, race, institution building, and political movements-as patterns and practices of politics and governance continue to change. This innovative approach contributes significantly to comparative democratization studies, a field normally confined to Latin America and former communist countries. The U.S. case is a unique reference point for students of American political development and comparative democratization.

The essays in this volume examine democracy's development in the United States, demonstrating how that process has shaped-and continues to shape-the American political system. Scholars of American politics commonly describe the political development of the United States as exceptional and distinct from that of other advanced industrial democracies. They point to the United States as the longest-lived and most stable liberal democracy in history. What they often fail to mention, though, is that it took considerable time to extend democracy throughout the country. The contributors to this volume suggest that it is intellectually fruitful to consider the U.S. case in comparison to other countries. They argue that the development of democracy is ongoing in America; that even with a written constitution grounded in liberal democracy, the meaning and significance of U.S. democracy are still evolving.This volume shows that democratization and the pursuit of democracy are processes affected by multiple and continuing challenges-including such issues as citizenship, race, institution building, and political movements-as patterns and practices of politics and governance continue to change. This innovative approach contributes significantly to comparative democratization studies, a field normally confined to Latin America and former communist countries. The U.S. case is a unique reference point for students of American political development and comparative democratization.