Search results

The American Dream functions as a myth within our political discourse by providing hope to citizens and reinforcing beliefs in the protestant work ethic and meritocracy. This article examines the myth through categories of mobility, marginalization, and hope. Elite theory and institutional isomorphism are used to explore business privilege within Public Administration. The ability to reframe the American Dream is considered through an examination of select speeches at the 2008 Democratic National Convention. Despite evidence of declining mobility and structural inequality, citizens cling to the myth. One explanation is that marginalization perpetuates the American Dream by crowding out issues of social class through various methods of institutional isomorphism. Another explanation is that the dream endures because it can be re-conceptualized.

Beginning with Rawls's claim that the Supreme Court is the exemplar of public reason, we develop a theory of how reasoned arguments are used in political disputes. We argue that justices often make piecemeal arguments and that this fragmented style of argumentation extends beyond the bench. The result is that many political disputes are “legalized” – not because public arguments are necessarily about laws, but because public arguments often unfold in the same ambiguous way that they do on the Court. We illustrate our argument by examining the use of American Dream talk in the dispute over same-sex marriage (SSM).

Father Patrick Primeaux has written an intriguing and ambitious book. Furthermore, unlike many other new books of this genre, which often do little more than re-visit the past expositions of other theorists, his book strives to make both a new and unique contribution to the study of business ethics. In reviewing such a book, it is therefore worth noting Jung's observation that ‘no book that makes an essentially new contribution to knowledge enjoys the privilege of being thoroughly understood’ (Jung, 1989, p. xiv). Having thus at the outset, rendered some excuse for whatever shortcomings of mine might follow, I will proceed.

Stuart Scheingold's path-breaking The Politics of Rights ignited scholarly interest in the political mobilization of rights. The book was a challenge to the reigning popular and scholarly common sense regarding the supposedly self-executing nature of rights (what Scheingold called the “myth of rights”). Rights, Scheingold argued, could be resources for the pursuit of social change; but their realization in court doctrine and legislative output was not itself tantamount to meaningful social change. Thus embedded in The Politics of Rights is skepticism (or at least ambivalence) about the utility of rights politics for social movements. Scheingold was not ambivalent about the moral or normative value of rights themselves, although he did argue that the realization of rights was not by itself enough to overcome the manifold inequalities that structure modern life. The Politics of Rights, accordingly, is clear-eyed, but not cynical about rights advocacy. It is thus surprising, and keenly revealing, that Scheingold's final work – The Political Novel, which is ostensibly not about rights at all – points to mass cynicism, alienation, and the collapse of faith in governing institutions and logics as the animating elements of modern liberal democracies, including especially the United States. That rights are a vital part of the civic mythology whose collapse defines modern times suggests that the civil rights context of aspiration and struggle in which Scheingold, and nearly all of his followers (this author included), have conceived rights may be unnecessarily narrow. Rights may also be embedded, that is, in the modern condition of alienation, despair, and felt powerlessness. Inspired by Scheingold's investigation of how literature points to this modern condition of political estrangement, I offer an alternative backdrop for The Politics of Rights that is rooted in the bleak renderings of the American character found in much 1970's American popular and intellectual culture. Such a contextualization, I will argue, suggests that we envision The Political Novel as a companion piece to The Politics of Rights; together they illuminate both the mobilizing and demobilizing potential of the myth of rights.

The purpose of this article is to critically examine two possible solutions to the lack of citizenship rights of children who lack documentation. Many industrialized countries must deal with undocumented children who have resided in the country most of their lives. In the USA, immigrants brought as children by their parents illegally are not eligible to receive financial help in most states for higher education, receive federal health care, or obtain driver's licenses. Even if they are qualified, they cannot legally work.

The article provides an in-depth analysis of the Dream Act and Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. The benefit of this study is to critically examine two possible solutions to the problem of undocumented children who have lived most of their lives in the USA.

The two solutions are analyzed in terms of broader conceptions of citizenship and human rights. Citizen rights are contested rights in the USA for undocumented immigrants and their children. It is found that theories of immigration and citizenship do not adequately explain the situation of undocumented childhood arrivals. After compulsory public education, undocumented students’ lives are at the mercy of state and federal administration policies. Citizenship theory is analyzed as it applies to undocumented immigrants brought as children to the USA.

This paper is limited to undocumented children in the USA.

The results point to the need for universal policies that will ensure young adults will have the critical resources and associated rights.

As Latinos become a large proportion of the US population, barriers to their continued education will impose significant economic and personal costs for individuals who have “identity without citizenship”.

This is among the first academic paper to link undocumented childhood arrivals in the USA, citizenship theory and public policy.

The proportional diminution of African American males in higher education is a complex societal issue and, as with most complex issues, defies simple solutions. The complexity of the issue is grounded in a less than humane history and the resulting social, cultural, economic, emotional, mental, and spiritual factors that to varying degrees have been shaped by that history (interview with Wilson, 1997). These factors are intimately and intricately interwoven into one another forming a whole that is not easy to analyze and characterize.

The purpose of this paper is to present and explore the deleterious socioeconomic consequence of six interrelated trends upon the sustainability of the personal portion of America’s social contract.

Neoclassical economic growth theory is used to frame the discussion of the trends in significant variables. This paper is a general review and draws on widely available data and academic insights of scholars.

This detailed examination leads to rejection of ergodicity and concludes that the existing social contract is unrealizable and unsustainable in present form for all but a shrinking minority of citizens.

The conclusion is robust but tentative since the trends reviewed are not fixed and may deviate from existing trend lines given undetermined government policies and unforeseeable technological developments.

The paper examines the origins and implications of six adverse systemic trends, highlighting the fact that existing policy prescriptions lack understanding of – and/or scale to comprehensively address – a growing existential threat to the Liberal Tradition’s entrenched social contract.

This paper aims to provide a historical overview of AA, its purpose and benefits, the legal rationale for the SCOTUS ruling and what it means for colleges and the workplace regarding equitable opportunities for minority groups (which include women, Blacks, Hispanics, Asians and other low-income populations), as they aim for the “American dream”.

SCOTUS decision and rationale, along with literature.

The race-based affirmative action (AA) precedent was recently overturned by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) in the case of Students for Fair Admission (SFFA), Inc. vs President and Fellows of Harvard College/University of North Carolina. SCOTUS ruled that race cannot be a specific basis for college admission. In other words, public and private colleges and universities will no longer be able to consider “race” as a factor in deciding which qualified applicants should be admitted to enhance the diversity of their student body.

This is an original analysis.

Scholars increasingly recognize the centrality of legal ideas and language to the political vision that inspires American conservatism. However, relevant studies have been limited to the discursive practices that motivate conservative activism at the grass-root level. Exploration of the legal discourses employed by prominent public officials thus carries significant scholarly potential. For example, this chapter's investigation of President Ronald Reagan reveals that his political vision was suffused with legal discourse. Reagan's legal discourse, moreover, has exerted constitutive effects both on American conservatism and on the form and substance of a great deal of contemporary American public policy.

The purpose of this paper is to question the frequently heard claims of a negative relationship between inequality and intergenerational mobility (such as the “Great Gatsby Curve” by Alan Krueger) and to propose entrepreneurship as the neglected prime countervailing force against the putative advantages of the rich.

A critical examination of evidences marshalled to support the case for a negative relationship between inequality and mobility, in terms of the appropriateness of statistical inferences and the consistency between implications and observations. The paper adopts alternative approach of Austrian economic in emphasizing the role of entrepreneurship in generating mobility.

The putative negative relationship between inequality and mobility is not supported by evidence. The result is partly that egalitarians tend to skip close examination when they run into evidence that seems to support their preconception. It is also partly that the dominant tradition in economics, based on the model of efficient allocation of given resources, induces them to overlook entrepreneurship, the prime wealth creator and generator of mobility.

The research outlines an argument that the rich do not have advantage in entrepreneurship because it depends not on the ownership of currently valued resources, but on the discovery and exploitation of profitable opportunities. This claim is made based on Kirznerian perspective and author’s own theory of inference and learning process. However, it would be nice to able to provide empirical evidence of this claim made in the paper.

Many policies of redistribution, based on the belief that increase in inequality (as measured by Gini coefficient) signifies a diminution of intergenerational mobility, should be re-examined since the alleged negative relationship between inequality and intergenerational mobility turns out to be untrue. For greater intergenerational mobility, entrepreneurs should be encouraged, by allowing them to experiment freely.

Emphasizing the role of entrepreneurship in intergenerational mobility and the dealing with the question of whether or not the rich would have advantage in entrepreneurship is original to this paper.