Search results

Barack Obama's emergence as the leader of the world's most powerful nation stirred much enthusiasm in Africa. This article examines Obama's relationship to Africa and African reactions to Obama – spanning from the time of his election to the United States Senate to the current period of his role as president of the United States. Focusing specifically on Obama's Ghana speech and subsequent African policy initiatives, the article suggests that many Africans are disappointed with Obama's Africa policy and that this is the result of several misperceptions: misperceptions of Obama's power as US president, misperceptions of his moderate political world view, and misperceptions of his cosmopolitan identity as an individual of African ancestry.

In this chapter, I analyze former US president Barack Obama’s foreign policy decision-making process during his two terms of presidency between the years 2008 and 2016. The analysis covers six decisions with an emphasis on decisions concerning conflicts that embodied a potential for the use of force.

Using the Applied Decision Analysis (ADA) method, I find that Barack Obama’s decision-making pattern in these decisions fits the poliheuristic decision theory, where the domestic politics dimension constitutes a non-compensatory dimension. By understanding President Obama’s use of the poliheuristic decision code, this study can offer an explanation to his willingness to use force in some cases, and his avoidance of the use of force in others.

This paper is concerned with the obstacles of educational reform in a racial climate and the acceptance of Barack Obama as the 44th president of the United States.

As a result, while the president’s positions on educational reform are important, the question still remains; can the majority of Whites support an agenda coming from a Black president? Moreover, as a Black man, can the president really be “allowed” to be a “representative” of all of the people? Do many people think that the election of Mr. Obama ushered in a “postracial” society; in that he is the living testament that we no longer need to focus on social justice, civil rights, and educational reform, especially for underperforming minority schools? Is race a factor among Whites and Blacks regarding President Obama’s approval ratings? How much success can any president expect to have when a significant majority of the population is resistant to his vision of “change?”

Based upon these lingering questions, the issue of race has been and will remain a factor in the Obama presidency that no other president has had to contend. Obfuscation, control, and fear appear to be the raison d’être regarding a strategy of resistance toward President Obama and his interest in “change.” These are the reasons why President Obama’s time is significantly spent on negotiating racial obstacles to change.

The goal of this paper is to provide a sociological and psychological context within a historical framing to understand obstacles to change faced by President Barack Hussein Obama.

The purpose of this study is to cover the change that happened in the American foreign policy toward Iran by changing the American leadership from Obama to Trump. In addition to its coverage for the Iranian foreign policy toward the Arab region during the presidency period of Obama in the USA and also during the presidency period of Trump, to discover whether a change has happened in the Iranian foreign policy toward the Arab region is a result of the change in the American foreign policy or not. This can be discovered by concentrating on Yemen, Syria and Iraq, taking into consideration the Iranian and American national interests in the Arab region, as well as the regional role of Iran and its intervention in the Arab region.

This study was based on the analytical method of the foreign policy that is based on analyzing facts and events, as well as analyzing the roles and interests within the framework of the states’ foreign policy. This method was used in the study for the purpose of analyzing the impact of the change in the American leadership from Obama to Trump on the US foreign policy toward Iran in the light of the American interest; in addition to the Iranian foreign policy toward the Arab region (Yemen, Syria and Iraq) in the presidency period of both Obama and Trump in light of the regional role of Iran and its passion to achieve its national interest.

The study concluded that the change in the American foreign policy toward Iran is a result of the change of the American leadership from Obama to Trump by the American interest requirements in accordance to the respective of both of them. The change in the American policy led to a change in the trends of the Iranian foreign policy toward the Arab region in the term of the regional Iranian role. Under the American and Iranian convergence in the period of Obama, the Iranian role in the Arab region was limited to what could achieve its national interest and what did not threaten the American interest, especially after Iran had guaranteed that the USA is by its side. In the framework of the American and Iranian confrontation under Trump’s current presidency, the Iranian role has expanded in the Arab region, where Iran has intensified its intervention in Yemen, Syria and Iraq politically and militarily. Iran became more threatening to the American interest, as it became a means of pressure to the USA under Trump’s ruling in the purpose of changing its position toward it.

The importance of the study stems from the fact that it is seeking to analyze the change of the American foreign policy toward Iran within the period of two different presidential years of Obama and Trump, whereas, their trends were different in dealing with Iran between rapprochement and hostility toward it, on the basis of the American interest. In addition to testing whether this change in the American foreign policy toward Iran has been accompanied by a change in the Iranian foreign policy toward the Arab region.

Donald Trump portrayed himself as a crusader against corrupt elites, claiming he would “drain the swamp.” Corporate elites generally depicted themselves as either trying to work with him or as directly opposed to him. Yet a closer analysis of Trump's policies and their outcomes in key issue areas, from taxes to immigration to the environment, shows continuity with previous pro-corporate policies. Furthermore, by positioning Trump as opposed to the elite, Trump and commentators on his presidency created a “radical flank” effect that made status quo, pro-corporate policies appear as progressive victories. This analysis suggests that a focus on the personal characteristics of politicians is misleading, and that the focus of political discourse needs to be on the power structure that shapes policy outcomes.

The author describes the continuous development of federal education policy from the Bush Administration’s No Child Left Behind Act through the Obama Administration’s Race to the Top state competition, noting critical similarities and results. Scholars of education and society agree that socioeconomic status of a school’s population is the most reliable indicator of a school’s success. Ravitch (2013) has emphasized the correlation of both racial isolation and poverty of communities with the standardized test scores of the communities’ students.

The author explores the main components of the Race to the Top competition, including its emphasis on measuring both student and teacher success at least partially in the form of standardized test scores, alongside the similarly standardized test-centric No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.

Through a critical comparison of the two administrations’ policies, the author demonstrates that federal education policy since 2001 has supported an increasingly powerful “educational reform” movement whose actions have been harmful to American public schools. Existing research in education overwhelmingly rejects the actions represented by federal education policy.

Both major American political parties have enthusiastically embraced an increasingly powerful “educational reform” movement whose actions have been harmful to American public schools. Teachers, scholars of education, students, parents, and other stakeholders must continue to demonstrate in the public sphere their dissatisfaction with standardized test-centric policies; school closings euphemistically titled “turnarounds”; and other hallmarks of the “educational reformers.”

Purpose – The purpose of this chapter is to discuss diversity among individual activists and the movement as a whole in the United States and identify the concerns, challenges, opportunities, and initiatives facing the broader network of global peace activists.

Design/methodology/approach – Data were from my study of U.S. peace activists that included 251 Internet survey respondents and 33 telephone interviewees.

Findings – I present a typology of internal and external challenges for the peace movement identified by activists, as well as five strategies for diversifying the movement.

Social implications – As some respondents expressed how their privileged status as American citizens prompted their peace activism, I explore how the intersection of a socially dominant status with the experience of belonging to a subordinated gender group impacts activism. I also discuss global opportunities to strengthen the peace and justice movement with a particular focus on women's activism.

Originality – While most studies of peace activism focus on social movement organizations, this is a comprehensive study of individuals involved in peace activism after September 11, 2001.

This essay tackles the Obama “phenomenon,” from his candidacy to his election, as a manifestation of the new “color-blind racism” that has characterized U.S. racial politics in the post-civil rights era. Rather than symbolizing the “end of race,” or indeed a “miracle,” Obama's election is a predictable result of contemporary U.S. electoral politics. In fact, Obama is a middle-of-the-road Democrat whose policies since taking office have been almost perfectly in line with his predecessors, especially in terms of his failure to improve the lot of blacks and other minorities. In this essay, I review the concept of color-blind racism and its application to the Obama phenomenon. I also revisit some of my past predictions for Obama's presidency and evaluate their accuracy halfway through his term. Finally, I offer suggestions for constructing a genuine social movement to push Obama and future politicians to provide real, progressive “change we can believe in.”

This chapter is based on a chapter I added for the third edition of my book, Racism without Racists. Louise Seamster, a wonderful graduate student at Duke, helped me update some material, locate new sources, and rework some sections, as well as abridge some of the many footnotes (interested readers can consult the chapter). I kept the first person to maintain the more direct and engaged tone of the original piece and because the ideas (the good, the bad, and the ugly ones) in the chapter are mine, and thus, I wish to remain entirely responsible for them.

To identify the Obama administration’s policy responsiveness to the (African) American LGBT communities.

Theory development and content analysis.

Civic universalism, as a theory, can explain President Obama’s evolution on his support for marriage rights for same-sex couples. Obama employed the concept of e pluribus unum in his many approaches to LGBT responsive politics.

To date, theoretical development within the social sciences of LGBT policy responsiveness is limited.

Very little is written on the subject of LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgendered) politics in the 21st century. The study of the LGBT experience generally has been devoid of political variables because of a lack of attention toward LGBT issues, until recently, in national political party agendas. In this chapter, we review some of the contours of the LGBT community’s fight for political recognition in the United States as a precursor to the election and reelection of President Obama. Drawing parallels with presidential responsiveness toward Blacks in their quest for rights, we examine the Obama administration’s LGBT public policy initiatives as administrative policy and programs. We conclude by identifying new areas of research to explore on LGBT politics.