In this article, we will probe two distinct historical questions. First, we explore why congressional representatives from the South, who had generally supported the Democratic Party on labor issues during the 1930s, joined with Republicans to oppose the party's pro-labor orientation in the 1940s. We also examine why the class-based union movement that mobilized so assertively after the passage of the Wagner Act in 1935 became so cramped and pragmatic by the early 1950s. These puzzles, we believe, are closely related. Our explanation for why labor's horizons, topography, and prospects constricted to workplace issues, to some segments of the working population, and to limited geographic areas by the end of the Truman years points to how southern Democrats shaped the main institutions produced by New Deal and Fair Deal labor legislation.
The days when the New Deal offered scholars a reliable springboard for plunging into an analysis of contemporary American politics are long past. Any number of important changes-the revolution in civil rights, the retrenchment in federal activism, the globalization of economic competitionhave served to set current presumptions and practices apart from the governing arrangements ushered in by the Great Depression and World War II. The works assembled for examination here all express this growing sense of distance. They are Alan Brinkley,
Seeking to advance historical studies of political institutions and behavior, we argue for an expansion of the standard methodological toolkit with a set of innovative approaches that privilege parameter heterogeneity to capture nuances missed by more commonly used approaches. We address critiques by prominent historians and historically oriented political scientists who have underscored the shortcomings of mainstream quantitative approaches for studying the past. They are concerned that the statistical models ordinarily employed by political scientists are inadequate for addressing temporality, periodicity, specificity, and context—issues that are central to good historical analysis. The innovations that we advocate are particularly well suited for incorporating these issues in empirical models, which we demonstrate with replications of extant research that focuses on locating structural breaks relating to realignments and split‐party Senate delegations and on the temporal evolution in congressional roll‐call behavior connected to labor policy during the New Deal and Fair Deal.
This introductory chapter starts by discussing the vast array of definitions and typologies of the city and the many specifications of the objects of urban studies (geography, sociology, politics, urban economics, etc.) that are symptomatic of uncertainty not only as to whether the social sciences possess the necessary tools to analyse cities, but also as to whether the city, both as an empirical and theoretical concept, constitutes a coherent entity. It is suggested that a critique is needed of the tradition in Western social theory that tries to apprehend the partial elements of the city within an approach that treats modernity in terms of differentiation, and that Marxism's claim that it can illuminate studies of the city is precisely because it uses wide‐spanning and comprehensive concepts and hypotheses about the shape of history. The next section of the chapter looks at the differences between Marxism and the differentiation approaches to cities in the company of Max Weber, whose analysis was grounded in the large‐scale processes that underpin urban development; it also discusses the views of some of his contemporaries. The final section examines the specific content of Marxist social theory/analysis that stresses social processes and relationships, and counterposes the differentiation problematic in the analysis of cities. It also discusses the urban omissions within Marxism, and work done later (in the late 1960s and early 1970s by Henri Lefebvre, Manuel Castells, and David Harvey) that reinvigorated the urban conversation within Marxism.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.