Name: Gentiana Çileposhi
Section: American Politics
Professional Email: gentiana.memia@hotmail.com
Professional Status: Graduate Student
Institution: Ana 2011
Scheduling Preference: No Preference
Proposal Type: Panel
Panel Title:
Panel Description:
Co-author info:
Co-presenter info:
Paper Title:  Is America a political power or economic power country
Abstract:
Tema: Is America a political power or a economic power country . What is economic power? It is the power to produce and to trade what one has produced. In a free economy, where no man or group of men can use physical coercion against anyone, economic power can be achieved only by voluntary means: by the voluntary choice and agreement of all those who participate in the process of production and trade. In a free market, all prices, wages, and profits are determined—not by the arbitrary whim of the rich or of the poor, not by anyone’s “greed” or by anyone’s need—but by the law of supply and demand. The mechanism of a free market reflects and sums up all the economic choices and decisions made by all the participants. Men trade their goods or services by mutual consent to mutual advantage, according to their own independent, uncoerced judgment. A man can grow rich only if he is able to offer better values—better products or services, at a lower price—than others are able to offer. Now let me define the difference between economic power and political power: economic power is exercised by means of a positive, by offering men a reward, an incentive, a payment, a value; political power is exercised by means of a negative, by the threat of punishment, injury, imprisonment, destruction. The businessman’s tool is values; the bureaucrat’s tool is fear. But nearly 400 years ago, the English philosopher Thomas Hobbes wrote that peace and security among the people were impossible without a government to enforce them. In his new book A Case for Goliath: How America Acts as a World Government in the 21st Century, Michael Mandelbaum, a political analyst at Johns Hopkins University, writes that after the Cold War, the United States played an important role in maintaining world order. This offers guarantees. Their military presence suppresses suspicions in Europe and Asia that would otherwise be felt and could lead to unintended political turmoil. The United States is leading the fight to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons to dangerous regimes or groups. " According to Professor Madelbaum, America also offers these services in the international economy.America's role, he says, brings benefits because it provides products to the public even without controlling the politics or economics of other societies. So why do so many people in the United States and around the world criticize this kind-hearted Goliath? Political interests, particular policy disputes and cultural differences are some of the reasons Mr Mandelbaum offers. But some analysts disagree.Benjamin Barber, a professor at the University of Maryland, says the United States often acts more as a dominant power than a government.“American hegemony brings some benefits to people. It can bring police control and security, cash for aid and banks, etc. And, normally, a rich country can do things that poor countries can't do. But they do so to the detriment of freedom, autonomy, justice and even the participation of people to govern their future, which is the true meaning of democracy. "Professor Barber says regime changes from the United States to Iraq and Afghanistan are examples of America imposing its will on other countries. What the world needs, says Mr Barber, is a multinational governing body to tackle global issues such as energy supply, pollution, natural disasters, epidemics and conflicts. Meanwhile, emerging regional powers such as China and the European Union are trying to have more international influence. But so far, neither has the economic strength, political will or military power to reach an international consensus to take the lead in the world community. So if the United States were to reduce its role in international relations, most analysts warn that the world could become more dangerous and less prosperous.

Name: Sam Edwards
Section: American Politics
Professional Email: sam.edwards@quinnipiac.edu
Professional Status: Associate Professor
Institution: Quinnipiac University
Scheduling Preference: Friday Afternoon
Proposal Type: Paper
Panel Title:
Panel Description:
Co-author info: Jacob Park, Ph.D., Green Mountain College, jacob.park@greenmtn.edu
Co-presenter info:
Paper Title:  The First Amendment in the Digital Age: Just what is speech and how should it be protected?
Abstract:
The United States is facing challenges in applying First Amendment principles from the eighteenth century to modern communications. This chapter examines cases where the government has intruded upon First Amendment rights. The first section examines when the government attempts to prevent protests by cutting internet access. This amounts to a digital gag and ear plugs for the protesters. Aside from cutting access to a single area, some governments have access to total internet “kill switches.” This allows unsurpassed censorship of speech. Now there are technical means installed in most phones that could allow governments to disconnect internet access at the individual phone. In the area of social media, the courts are struggling to identify what constitutes speech. For example, when is a “like” or a “wink” speech? Equally important, when can a political figure censor speech through blocking users on social media? These cases represent warning signs that the United States, just like other countries, is struggling to adapt eighteenth century legal principles to modern communication.

Name: Javier Fernandez
Section: American Politics
Professional Email: javier.fernandez@westpoint.edu
Professional Status: Undergraduate Student
Institution: United States Military Academy
Scheduling Preference: Saturday Morning
Proposal Type: Paper
Panel Title:
Panel Description:
Co-author info:
Co-presenter info:
Paper Title:  Globalization and the Politicization of Formal and Informal Checks on Executive Power
Abstract:
To use the words of Jonathan Rauch, recent political developments have demonstrated a gradual degradation of “intelligible boundaries [and] enforceable norms” within mainstream American party politics, prompting “reengage political behavior,” often characterized by the 2016 presidential election. Party leadership, he argues, “has become an anachronism” as demagogues curb their party-establishment connections in hopes of cementing their legacy in an increasingly populist electoral environment [1]. While Rauch cites the synergistic interaction of contemporary political radicalization and technological advancement as the source of systemic disruptions in American political mobilization, others have noted the grander impacts of globalization in provoking such symptoms as domestic socioeconomic trends react to the dynamic nature of global economic market trends [2]. Overall, the following conversation discusses the increased role of globalization in fomenting a level of polarization amongst formal and informal actors that has significantly politicized the intent of governmental checks to executive authority. Notes [1] Jonathan Rauch, “How American Policies Went Insane,” The Atlantic (July/August 2016), https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/07/how-american-politics-went-insane/485570/. [2] Jonathan Rauch, “How American Policies Went Insane,” The Atlantic (July/August 2016), https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/07/how-american-politics-went-insane/485570/; Dani Rodrik, “Populism and the economics of globalization,” Journal of International Business Policy (2018): 2 – 5, 12 - 16

Name: Esra Gules-Guctas
Section: American Politics
Professional Email: egules-guctas@albany.edu
Professional Status: Graduate Student
Institution: University at Albany
Scheduling Preference: Friday Afternoon
Proposal Type: Paper
Panel Title:
Panel Description:
Co-author info:
Co-presenter info:
Paper Title: DYNAMICS OF JUDICIAL BEHAVIOR IN IMMIGRATION COURTS
Abstract:
Existing studies of asylum system have consistently found vast discrepancy of asylum grant rates among individual immigration judges. Studies of immigration courts and asylum decisions are few and have often failed to situate these decisions in the wider context of judicial behavior. Building on existing models of judicial behavior and using asylum decisions in immigration cases as a lens to learn about the judicial decision making in immigration courts, this study examines what accounts for this significant statistical variation. The study uses a novel dataset that combine proceedings records between 2012-2017, with information on the characteristics of the immigration judges, their workloads and the local and political context of each immigration court. Using multilevel regression analysis, I examined the rates at which 293 immigration Judges denied asylum in 120, 077 cases between fiscal years 2012 and 2017. The findings of this study indicate that there is much more to judicial behavior in immigration courts than captured by the attitudinal and strategic choice models. The analysis unveils a complex reality in which immigration judges’ policy predispositions appears to be influenced by their gender as well as local political context. The partisan composition of the state where the immigration judge lives and works appears to account for significant variation in denial rates between the immigration judges serving in different courts.

Name: Joshua Meddaugh, Ph.D.
Section: American Politics
Professional Email: joshuameddaugh@clayton.edu
Professional Status: Associate Professor
Institution: Clayton State University
Scheduling Preference:
Proposal Type: Paper
Panel Title:
Panel Description:
Co-author info: ,Jason Davis, Ph.D. Clayton State University Lisa Holland-Davis, Ph.D. Clayton State University
Co-presenter info:
Paper Title:  4th and Downs: An Economic Theory of Governance and the NCAA
Abstract:
Anthony Downs (1957) created an economic theory of governmental decision-making which argues that the social function of government, to formulate and carry out polices, is a by-product of political parties private motivations, which is to increase their “income, power, and prestige” (p. 137). Working on this theory, we argue that the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) is an association in name only and is acting as a government agency that is seeking only to maximize their private interest which is income, power, and prestige. We argue that the member institutions (political parties) of the NCAA not only recognize, but willingly accept and promote, the NCAA in order to protect their own private motivations while maintaining the veil of amateurism (McCormick & McCormick 2008 ). Ultimately, this work seeks to rightfully classify the NCAA as a government and unveil the nature of this agency’s decision-making.

Name: Wesley Nishiyama
Section: American Politics
Professional Email: wn8492@albany.edu
Professional Status: Assistant Professor
Institution: NY State Assembly
Scheduling Preference: Saturday Afternoon
Proposal Type: Paper
Panel Title:
Panel Description:
Co-author info:
Co-presenter info:
Paper Title:  The Delayed Effect of the Census on the Electoral College: Jefferson, the Second Not the Third President?
Abstract:
Much has been written about the Electoral College. Few, however, explored the delayed effects that census data has on reallocating the number of Electoral College delegates to each state. Once census data is collected (every ten years), the reallocation of the number of members of the House (and so Electoral College delegates) usually takes two years. That is, ever twenty years (. . . 1980, 2000, 2020. . .) the president is chosen using census data from the previous decade. Indeed, the upcoming 2020 presidential election will use census data from 2010. Scholars have treated this problem in a general way. For example, Judith Best (1971)—who supports the Electoral College and George Edwards III (2004)—who opposes the Electoral College, both raise the problem with delayed census data, but neither considers particular elections. This paper considers presidential elections every twenty years, and shows that the delayed census data, ceteris paribus, had no effect on the outcomes, except for the election of 1800—Jefferson, not Adams, would have been the second president. Such a different possible outcome should be alarming. We must, however, recall that the election of 1800 was before the 12th Amendment, which had changed considerably how the president is elected. In addition, there is a “ceteris paribus assumption” that is false. Campaign strategies consider the number of delegates each state is awarded and strategies will change as the numbers change. This project may be accused of engaging in hypothetical history, but that is not the intent of this investigation. Rather, this paper illustrates that there is a problem with either, the Electoral College, the census, or both. Every twenty years, some states are over-represented while others are under-represented. Popular elections, which do not require census data, could solve the problem, but will create other problems—problems the Electoral College effectively addresses. Perhaps a better solution is to change the way the census is collected (intervals, frequency, sample surveys, counting people only, etc.). The first part of this paper includes a quantitative analysis—considering numbers. The second part considers the history of elections. The last part makes recommendations to address the discussed problems. This paper does not directly address the merits or deficiencies of the Electoral College, but rather, investigates the problems which arise with delayed census data.

Name: david ricci
Section: History and Politics
Professional Email: msricci@mscc.huji.ac.il
Professional Status: Full Professor
Institution: hebrewuniversity
Scheduling Preference: No Preference
Proposal Type: Paper
Panel Title:
Panel Description:
Co-author info:
Co-presenter info:
Paper Title: Political Science for the Age of Trump 
Abstract:
NYSPSA Abstract “Political Science for the Age of Populism” by David Ricci Donald Trump epitomizes recent changes in the way Americans communicate and work together. That being so, some political scientists should investigate and teach about the ecology of capitalism -- that is, creative destruction -- which (1) produced this president and which (2) is straining democratic principles and practices, individuals and communities. Economists promote economic (a) creativity, presuming that it leads to growth which generates social welfare. However, no academic discipline focuses on economic (b) destruction. Yet such destruction imposes great costs on individuals and society, from government by social media to downsizing and outsourcing, from environmental deterioration to climate change, from personal anxiety to international trade wars. Consequently, some political scientists (but not all) should adopt a special mission of highlighting instances of damage as they arise and publicizing what we learn so as to help government officials and citizens mitigate the damage caused by creative destruction in our times. Unmitigated, those damages cause (i) resentment, which fuels (ii) populism, and therefore endangers (iii) democracy. Using terms fashioned by Judith Shklar (opposing tyranny) and Ian Shapiro (favoring problem-oriented research), such a project should especially target neoliberalism, which since the Reagan presidency has promoted and fostered indiscriminate economic growth and its consequences. Additional arguments along these lines will appear in David Ricci, A Political Manifesto for the Age of Populism: Challenging Growth, Markets, Inequality, and Resentment (Cambridge University Press, 2020).

Name: Joshua Sandman
Section: American Politics
Professional Email: jsandman@newhaven.edu
Professional Status: Full Professor
Institution: Univ. of New Haven
Scheduling Preference: Friday Morning
Proposal Type: Paper
Panel Title:
Panel Description:
Co-author info:
Co-presenter info:
Paper Title: Trump As Populist President: A Perspective For Understanding the Trump Presidency  
Abstract:
I contend that the Trump Presidency needs to be understood as a populist presidency. As a populist Trump continues to reach out to common citizens who believe that their interests and concerns have not been addressed by established government, economic, and social institutions. His actions in office, narrative campaign rallies,, and public persona are all oriented towards his supportive and loyal base -- the white working class (especially in small towns and rural areas), conservative republicans, Evangelical Christians, and social and cultural conservatives. I study the Trump presidency and other modern presidents attempting a populist presidential framework. Please Note: I am a Saturday Sabbath observer and would greatly appreciate (if my paper is accepted for presentation) being assigned to an early Friday morning panel.

Name: Jim Twombly
Section: American Politics
Professional Email: jtwombly@elmira.edu
Professional Status: Full Professor
Institution: Elmira College
Scheduling Preference: No Preference
Proposal Type: Paper
Panel Title: AP-2 Voting Choice
Panel Description:
Co-author info: Chuck Lindsay & Devin Woolf
Co-presenter info: Chuck Lindsay & Devin Woolf
Paper Title:  Volatility of Presidential Approval in a Polarized Political World
Abstract:
The extant literature in political science is teeming with works addressing polarization: its causes, its construction, and its effects on American politics. In previous work (Twombly 2018 and 2019), I noted an apparent relationship between polarization and the volatility of presidential approval. Visual evidence seemed quite clear, but alas in my recent work, the statistical evidence was weak at best. In this paper, I employ measures beyond the Gallup Poll’s Party Gap measure, including typical controls for economic performance. As suggested by the work McCarty, Poole, and Rosenthal (2003), I employ measures of income inequality—suggested by them as a cause of polarization not derived from the presidential approval measure. Additionally, I look to other measures of polarization such as the Poole and Rosenthal DW-Nominate scores for a relationship between polarization and the volatility of approval. This work is yet another piece of a larger project on the presidency in the twenty-first century.