Name: Sam Goodson
Section: History and Politics
Professional Email: sgoodson@gradcenter.cuny.edu
Professional Status: Graduate Student
Institution: CUNY Graduate Center
Scheduling Preference: No Preference
Proposal Type: Paper
Panel Title:
Panel Description:
Co-author info: Christopher Putney, cputney@gradcenter.cuny.edu
Co-presenter info: Christopher Putney, cputney@gradcenter.cuny.edu
Paper Title: The People’s Party in American Political Development: Rethinking Populism and Democracy in the American South
Abstract:
Perhaps no concept has become more ubiquitous among scholars of contemporary “democratic backsliding” and “norm-erosion” than populism. Populist movements, with their firm distinctions between a political “us” and “other”––coupled with a native disdain for formal institutions and elites––are thought to threaten the very fabric of pluralistic liberal democracy. There is no question that contemporary liberal democracies face threats more dire today than in at least a generation; and that some leaders routinely described with the populist epithet have played key roles in orchestrating such threats. But is it simply the case that populism remains an engine of this assault on democratic norms? Against that prevailing ahistorical view, this study makes the case that major populist movements in the United States have actually stood as the greatest harbingers and defenders of democracy. By rethinking the theoretical and political contributions of the People’s Party of the 1890s––as well as its signal political and theoretical antecedents––we trace the contours of a better framework for understanding populism writ large. Revisiting populist activity across the nineteenth-century American South, new questions emerge from this framework; not just about the substantive meaning of populism, but about how and why the “populist moment” subsumed several pre-existing political logics, and––in the crucible of political strife––conjoined them into new forms of political awareness, dissent, and organization. Moreover, we show how populists could contend with, but ultimately go beyond, traditional forms of contestation over the ends and means of federal power in the United States to the core dilemmas of liberal modernity itself. Finally, by critiquing and revising competing accounts of this period with an eye towards contemporary threats to democracy, we show that––rather than a primary threat to democractic governance––populism has been a primary vehicle for democratic renewal in American history.

Name: Krishnan Raman
Section: History and Politics
Professional Email: ramank0@yahoo.com
Professional Status: Practitioner
Institution: None [ Retired ]
Scheduling Preference: Saturday Morning
Proposal Type: Paper
Panel Title:
Panel Description:
Co-author info:
Co-presenter info:
Paper Title: Some Political Issues Relating to Place and Movement
Abstract:
This paper discusses political issues relating to an Individual’s Right to a Place and a Right to Free-Movement. Such issues should be addressed at a human level, and not within existing formal structures and rules. a. The Right to a Place: What decides the right to belong to a community, or to dwell in a land ? Who decides , and lays down the rules ? b. The Right to Move, to Migrate, in order to make possible building a new life. Can Immigration to another land be considered a right ? A Possible Rationale – based on Fairness : Resources worldwide are not available equitably. What can justify that people in one land enjoy abundant resources, while people in another barely subsist ? Is it just that they got there first ? Did that also give them the right to prevent others from coming in ? The apparent dominant world-view -- the people who came first had full ownership rights, and the right to pass them on to descendants. – But don’t people in need have a moral right to a place to live in ? For a land with large resources – should it not have a duty to accommodate newcomers in need ? Such as People with Inadequate living conditions in their own land, or Refugees. How do we set up a framework.balancing the requirements of Fairness and Resource Availability ? --- Different underlying world-views : a. An Isolationist ‘Island’ view – each nation is like an independent island and fends for itself. b. A broad inclusive view -- that all are interconnected and interdependent. Globalization -- To some it meant that the world was one’s domain for making profit. To others it meant a genuine move towards extended interaction and exchange for the benefit of all. Transnational Communities: A community need not be defined by a common spatial location. They may be “Imagined Communities”. Historical examples : Sharing the “White Man’s Burden” ; OR Belonging to the same faith, e.g. Christianity or Islam. The Diasporas in today’s world can provide a strong community force. The Internet and Social Media for creating Virtual Communities in Cyberspace: These can create large communities, and also provide a strong political force. The Need for New World-Views and Paradigms How can we make the equitable sharing of Resources, including Land, a Norm in our Thinking ? How can the resource-rich “Have” communities and Nations be persuaded to share resources with “Have-Not” communities and nations ? And the historically dominant role of Power and Military & Economic Might -- can they be countered and softened ? New paradigms need to be generated which will help move the world toward such a transformation. Perhaps a combination of a Moral Approach – a new meta-level Human Ethic ; together with the unifying forces of multiple Diasporas; and wide-ranging pervasive Virtual Communities made possible by the Internet and Social Media , can help us chart a road toward a more inclusive, interconnected, world society, based on Fairness and equitable sharing.

Name: Harvey Strum
Section: History and Politics
Professional Email: strumh@sage.edu
Professional Status: Full Professor
Institution: Russell Sage
Scheduling Preference: Saturday Morning
Proposal Type: Paper
Panel Title:
Panel Description:
Co-author info: none
Co-presenter info: None
Paper Title:  Foreign Policy's Impact on Local and State Politics in New York, 1807-1815
Abstract:
Between 1807-1815 foreign policy and domestic national issues were superimposed upon existing political divisions in New York. They reinforced certain divisions---Federalists vs Republicans and altered others---factional divisions within the Republican Party. Contrasting trends emerged. Voting behavior between 1807-15 revealed the importance of localism in state politics. Federalist gains in the Assembly elections of 1808-09, 1812-13, and 1815, the State Senatorial elections of 1809, gubernatorial election of 1813, and congressional election elections of 1808 and 1812 represented a repudiation of the foreign policies of Jefferson and Madison---of the embargo and War of 1812, and not the Republican Party. Especially, between 1808-1815 foreign policy and its impact on the lives of New Yorkers emerged as the major issues in town, city, state legislative, congressional, and gubernatorial elections. After 1800 a majority of New York's voters identified with the Republican Party but the foreign policies of Jefferson and Madison allowed for the political resurrection of the Federalist Party at the local and state level. New York entered the War of 1812 politically divided, as suggest by De Witt Clinton's presidential bid, and the results of the 1815 state elections confirmed the divisiveness of the war as many New Yorkers saw the war as a war of party, not country.