A guest post by Layna Mosley, Professor of Political Science at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (with contributions from John Granville Peterson Cluverius, Mark Copelovitch, Roger Halchin, Andrew Herring, Jordy Lobe, Julia Lynch, W.K. Winecoff).
Financial markets continue to take the Trump presidency in stride, but the last six months have been tough. Political scientists worry that the Trump presidency is undermining our country’s democratic norms and processes. It’s sometimes hard to know who, if anyone, is in charge, especially over at the State Department. Or at the Justice Department. News moves pretty fast. If you don’t stop and look around once in a while, you could miss it (is this guide outdated yet?). Or you could forget to disclose a few dozen assets.
A guest post by Layna Mosley,* Professor of Political Science at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
(*with contributions from Jeff Colgan, Beth Copelovitch, Mark Copelovitch, Artie G, Anna Grzymala-Busse, Roger Halchin, Andrew Herring , Steph Jeffries, Julia Lynch, Jon Pevehouse, Milada Vachudova, Erik Voeten and Christopher Zorn)
President Trump’s proposed economic policies may be bad news for some businesses, like US firms with international supply chains, but if my behavior is any indication of broader trends, Trump has generated a boom for the beverage industry. While I’ve so far stuck to whatever happens to be on hand at home – IPA, stout, rosé, lighter fluid – it promises to be a long four years (hopefully, the 21st Amendment will endure, even if the rest of the Constitution does not). It’s time to diversify one’s drink choices.
Greetings, Duck Followers. I’m Amanda – assistant professor at Mizzou, avid hiker, crazy sci-fi romance novel reader, and pretty competent mother. I’m excited to be a new “duckling” on the block. On the eve of the next US presidential debate, I’ll go out on a limb and guess that the dire human rights situation in Syria will be mentioned. I’ll also bet that neither candidate will say definitively that a humanitarian military intervention is needed.
But, in line with my research and that of my colleagues, some forms of military intervention – especially intervention with a stated humanitarian purpose and that against the perpetrator of the abuses- could really help the extremely dire human rights situation in Syria. Other interventions, however, could exasperate human rights problems. David R. Davis and I have made the case that only peacekeeping operations with a stated humanitarian goal will improve human rights after civil war – some other forms of peacekeeping actually lead to a decrease in human rights…. But, that’s after the conflict. What about during the conflict/genocide/craziness?