Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

American Politics Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

PDF

Rhode Island College

Honors Projects

Series

Politics

Articles 1 - 2 of 2

Full-Text Articles in American Politics

Amidst The Varieties Of Populism: The Case Of The Recurrent Pattern Of Nativism And Authoritarian Populism In The Politics Of U.S. Immigration Policy, Michelle C. Arias Santabay Jan 2017

Amidst The Varieties Of Populism: The Case Of The Recurrent Pattern Of Nativism And Authoritarian Populism In The Politics Of U.S. Immigration Policy, Michelle C. Arias Santabay

Honors Projects

This project started as a comparison of varieties of populism emergent in the past two decades, which grew into discerning how authoritarian populism is rooted in nativism as a recurrent concept throughout immigration policy in the U.S. This is demonstrated historically by reviewing the different types of nativist movements in different epochs of controversial immigration policy. The project’s methodology derives from the usage of political sociology conceptualizing populism as a discursive register or rhetorical style as argued by Ernesto Laclau (2005; 2011) or as a structure of feeling (as argued by Raymond Williams 1977). Therefore, populism is seen as a …


Congress, Interest Groups, And The Strategic Use Of Judicial Review, Gary S. Pascoa Apr 2014

Congress, Interest Groups, And The Strategic Use Of Judicial Review, Gary S. Pascoa

Honors Projects

Prior research suggests that political actors use judicial review for politically strategic purposes in order to achieve policy goals. Depending upon institutional considerations, members of Congress and interest groups will either seek to allow or preclude judicial review of agency actions. This study seeks to test these claims using the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 and focuses on the creation of the Independent Payment Advisory Board. The findings provide some support for the claims, but show less than expected concern over judicial review, particularly among interest groups. The study then provides four explanations for these findings.