Search

In this study, I ask to what extent has partisan polarization emerged in the American corporation, and to the extent it exists, is this effect equal across occupations within firms, and can certain types of partisan firms emerge more strongly than others? Using a computational approach to recursively identify individual partisanship, I analyze the campaign finance contribution records of individual employees and executives at Fortune 100 firms from 1980-2018. I find strong evidence of increasing partisan polarization within firms, particularly after the 2012 presidential election. Increased within-firm partisan polarization exists not only among executives but also among other firm employees more generally. Furthermore, through the use of hierarchical cluster analysis, I identify three types of emergent partisan firms, namely, polarized democratic, polarized republican, and amphibious firms, the latter of which alternate between weak democratic and republican states. Of these, the organizational types with the most notable changes occur among polarized democratic firms, which have become increasingly homogenous in the strength of their democratic, partisan attachments. These results build upon the notions of firm-actorhood, organizational emergence, and partisan polarization, suggesting new avenues of research to better explore the effects of partisanship on organizations, corporate boards, and careers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper critically interrogates the role of authoritarianism in the 2012 United States Presidential Election. While recent studies have demonstrated the importance of authoritarianism with respect to the 2016 election, much less is known about if, and how, authoritarianism affected the 2012 election. Beyond simply asking if authoritarianism matters, there is a strong focus throughout this paper on exactly what dimension of authoritarianism matters, and how it matters. Using data from the American National Election Survey, a series of ordinary least squares and logistic regressions are conducted for white respondents. The main finding is that social dominance orientation consistently and powerfully predicts voting behavior, political attitudes, and prejudice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research on the extent to which racial antipathies influence attitudes toward government spending in the United States suggests that anti-black prejudice is associated with opposition among whites to spending on welfare but not to spending in other areas such as health, education, unemployment and Social Security. This article further examines the relationship between prejudice and whites' spending preferences by incorporating into the analysis measures of anti-black prejudice not utilized heretofore. Analysis of data from the 2012 National Election Study demonstrates that anti-black prejudice influences whites' attitudes toward welfare and non-welfare spending alike. More specifically, racial antipathy increases whites' opposition to spending on education, health care, unemployment and welfare and reduces opposition to spending on Social Security. These findings underscore the obstacles anti-black prejudice presents to efforts to implement social policies designed to improve the life chances of Americans in general and African Americans in particular. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

How do we assess the election of Barack Obama as president of the United States in the context of the long struggle for people of African descent for equality and social justice within the United States? A proper investigation of this question requires that we comprehend both the unity and diversity of the Black Freedom Struggle and its very conscious self-conception of itself as a segment of oppressed strata within the United States and within the larger world-system. I thus argue that the foundation of the Obama coalition is the historical strength of Black Solidarity against systemic racism in the United States and in the larger world-system. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]