New Books in Political Science

When we think about threats to democracy, we often imagine dramatic breakdowns—military coups, constitutional crises, or sudden collapses. But today, a common danger is slower and less visible: democratic erosion driven by elected leaders themselves. Across different regions, presidents and prime ministers are weakening institutions, undermining accountability, and reshaping the rules of the game from within. Why is this happening now, and why do voters sometimes tolerate it?

In this episode, CEDAR host Temitayo Odeyemi speaks with Susan Stokes about her article in the Journal of Democracy, “Why Elected Leaders Subvert Democracy,” and what it reveals about the changing nature of democratic backsliding in the twenty-first century. Drawing on this work, as well as her recent book The Backsliders: Why Leaders Undermine Their Own Democracies (Princeton University Press, 2025), the conversation explores how rising inequality, shifting party systems, and deepening polarisation create openings for backsliding leaders, and how strategies such as “democratic trash talk” can erode public trust in institutions.

Susan Stokes is the Tiffany and Margaret Blake Distinguished Service Professor and Director of the Chicago Center on Democracy at the University of Chicago. Her research focuses on democratic theory, distributive politics, and comparative political behaviour.

Temitayo Odeyemi is a Research Fellow in Democratic Resilience at the University of Birmingham’s Centre for Elections, Democracy, Accountability and Representation (CEDAR).

The People, Power, Politics podcast brings you the latest insights into the factors that are shaping and reshaping our political world. It is brought to you by the Centre for Elections, Democracy, Accountability and Representation at the University of Birmingham, United Kingdom. Join us to better understand the forces that promote and undermine democratic government around the world.

Transcript here
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

This week on Democracy Dialogues, host Maya Tudor speaks with her colleague and fellow political scientist Pepper Culpepper about his new book Billionaire Backlash: The Age of Corporate Scandal and How It Could Save Democracy, co-authored with Taeku Lee. They explore how corporate scandals—from industry exposes to data privacy breaches—can become moments of democratic reckoning, mobilizing public outrage against concentrated corporate power. The conversation examines why scandals matter politically, the circumstances under which public backlash can still generate meaningful accountability, and what good populism is in an era of growing economic inequality and democratic strain.

Links:

Bloomsbury here

Journal of Democracy here
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

Catastrophic Diplomacy: US Foreign Disaster Assistance in the American Century (UNC Press, 2023) offers a sweeping history of US foreign disaster assistance, highlighting its centrality to twentieth-century US foreign relations. Spanning over seventy years, from the dawn of the twentieth century to the mid-1970s, it examines how the US government, US military, and their partners in the American voluntary sector responded to major catastrophes around the world. Focusing on US responses to sudden disasters caused by earthquakes, tropical storms, and floods—crises commonly known as "natural disasters"—historian Julia F. Irwin highlights the complex and messy politics of emergency humanitarian relief.
Deftly weaving together diplomatic, environmental, military, and humanitarian histories, Irwin tracks the rise of US disaster aid as a tool of foreign policy, showing how and why the US foreign policy establishment first began contributing aid to survivors of international catastrophes. While the book focuses mainly on bilateral assistance efforts, it also assesses the broader international context in which the US government and its auxiliaries operated, situating their humanitarian responses against the aid efforts of other nations, empires, and international organizations. At its most fundamental level, Catastrophic Diplomacy demonstrates the importance of international disaster assistance—and humanitarian aid more broadly—to US foreign affairs.
Julia F. Irwin, PhD, Yale University, 2009, is professor of history at Louisiana State University. Her research focuses on the place of humanitarian aid in twentieth-century U.S. foreign relations. Her first book, Making the World Safe: The American Red Cross and a Nation’s Humanitarian Awakening (2013), is a history of U.S. international relief efforts during the World War I era; the dissertation on which it is based won the Betty M. Unterberger Dissertation Prize from the Society for Historians of American Foreign Relations.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

When we think about threats to democracy, we often imagine dramatic breakdowns—military coups, constitutional crises, or sudden collapses. But today, a common danger is slower and less visible: democratic erosion driven by elected leaders themselves. Across different regions, presidents and prime ministers are weakening institutions, undermining accountability, and reshaping the rules of the game from within. Why is this happening now, and why do voters sometimes tolerate it?

In this episode, CEDAR host Temitayo Odeyemi speaks with Susan Stokes about her article in the Journal of Democracy, “Why Elected Leaders Subvert Democracy,” and what it reveals about the changing nature of democratic backsliding in the twenty-first century. Drawing on this work, as well as her recent book The Backsliders: Why Leaders Undermine Their Own Democracies (Princeton University Press, 2025), the conversation explores how rising inequality, shifting party systems, and deepening polarisation create openings for backsliding leaders, and how strategies such as “democratic trash talk” can erode public trust in institutions.

Susan Stokes is the Tiffany and Margaret Blake Distinguished Service Professor and Director of the Chicago Center on Democracy at the University of Chicago. Her research focuses on democratic theory, distributive politics, and comparative political behaviour.

Temitayo Odeyemi is a Research Fellow in Democratic Resilience at the University of Birmingham’s Centre for Elections, Democracy, Accountability and Representation (CEDAR).

The People, Power, Politics podcast brings you the latest insights into the factors that are shaping and reshaping our political world. It is brought to you by the Centre for Elections, Democracy, Accountability and Representation at the University of Birmingham, United Kingdom. Join us to better understand the forces that promote and undermine democratic government around the world.

Transcript here
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

Political historian Oscar Winberg has a fascinating new book titled Archie Bunker for President: How One Television Show Remade American Politics. This book weaves together quite a few different threads in examining the historical context in which the television show, All In The Family, landed on American television screens. Archie Bunker for President examines why this particular sitcom was a kind of inflection point within U.S. politics, within the media landscape at the time and moving forward, and how television production shifted and changed around this one particular television series. Winberg also lays out the path from the early 1970s, when All in the Family first aired, to our contemporary political moment, when celebrity and politics seem to be inescapably intertwined.

As Winberg notes in our conversation, television as an entity is inherently conservative, since the functional model was about appealing to the lowest common denominator so that advertisers would be willing to pay for time during shows. In order to reach the most viewers, at least in the age of network television, the television series needed to appeal to the largest market possible, and not “turn off” viewers. What happens in the late 1960s and early 1970s with the television show All in the Family is that this dynamic shifts, and the case is made that it isn’t about reaching the most people, but about reaching the people who have the means and inclination to purchase what the advertisers are selling. This is part of the pitch that Norman Lear makes, that CBS executive Bob Wood finally decides to gamble on by greenlighting All in the Family. The dynamic inside the show itself is to focus on politics: to have the characters within the series discuss different political issues, and engage with the impacts of these issues, from women’s rights and reproductive health to homosexuality to racism and the anti-war movement. In designing All in the Family with Archie Bunker (played by Carroll O’Conner) clearly defined as a conservative and as a bigot, and with Archie’s daughter, Gloria Stivic (played by Sally Struthers) and son in law, Mike Stivic (played by Rob Reiner), as liberals and politically active, the show embedded politics within the narrative. Edith Bunker, played by Jean Stapleton, was an enthusiastic supporter of the Equal Rights Amendment, which was making its way through the ratification process while the series was airing, providing yet another avenue for political discussion within the show’s structure.

There were quite a few other shows that were developed at the same time as All in the Family that took up similarly political themes in iconic ways, from the Mary Tyler Moore Show to M*A*S*H to Maude. Political conversations were the fabric of these shows in much the same way as in All in the Family, where characters find themselves experiencing dimensions of politics in their lives and they discuss this with friends and family within the narrative construction. This also translated to Americans discussing these shows with each other at dinner, or at the “water cooler”, or at the beauty parlor or barbershop. Given the structure of television in the 1970s and 1980s, before cable and streaming services, options were more limited options, and many of these shows had great writers, actors, and showrunners. This was “appointment television” because there was no way to record or otherwise go back and watch the episode. Episodes were only available at their regularly scheduled time and day—which also meant that lots and lots of Americans were watching the same show at the same time.

In some sense, Archie Bunker for President: How One Television Show Remade American Politics is not only about how one television show remade American politics, but also about how All in the Family remade American television, opening up the networks to developing and airing television shows that integrate politics (of all kinds) into the narratives. There is still quite a lot of television, particularly network television, that is pitched to the broadest possible audience, but the narratives in police procedurals or hospital-centered series or sitcoms integrate different dimensions of politics into their storylines in ways that had not been done before All in the Family.

Lilly J. Goren is a professor of political science at Carroll University in Waukesha, WI.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science