Muslim World Report

Democratic Cloture Vote: Political Theater or Genuine Governance?

Dr. Anthony Lindsay | Mar 25, 2025 10:45 AM | 22 min read | 4587 words

The Political Theater of Cloture: Implications for Democracy and Governance

In March 2025, the U.S. Senate faced a pivotal moment in its long history of budgetary maneuvering and political strategy as it deliberated on a Republican-led continuing resolution aimed at preventing a government shutdown. This vote not only underscored the tactical decisions at play but also revealed deeper ideological currents within the Democratic Party. Ten Senate Democrats voted in favor of cloture, enabling the resolution to advance, while a majority—especially those vulnerable ahead of the 2026 elections—cast their votes against it. This division raises critical questions about political accountability and the motivations driving voting behavior, particularly in a context where self-preservation often supersedes genuine representation (Diamond, 1994; Eberhard, 2005).

Jon Stewart’s critique of this decision reflects a growing disillusionment among voters who increasingly perceive political actions as mere performances, devoid of any authentic commitment to their constituents. Stewart’s suggestion that Democratic leadership sacrificed a unified front to shield its more vulnerable members from electoral backlash resonates deeply. It suggests a troubling trend: Are politicians prioritizing their own survival over the pressing needs and concerns of their constituents? (Akhavan, 1998; Green, 2013).

The ramifications of this political theater extend far beyond immediate budgetary concerns. As political theater overshadows substantive policy discussions, we risk a continued erosion of public trust in government. The contrasting strategies of Democrats and Republicans reveal a deeply polarized political environment, where accountability and representation are often sacrificed for tactical advantage. This crisis in governance threatens to undermine the integrity of democratic institutions themselves. The necessity of a functioning government is paramount, yet when operational frameworks are compromised by strategic maneuvering, the consequences can be catastrophic. As citizens grow increasingly frustrated with a government that appears detached from their realities, their calls for accountability will only intensify. The outcomes of these decisions—both immediate and long-term—will shape the political landscape in ways that remain largely uncharted.

What If the Democrats Lose the 2026 Elections?

Should the Democrats suffer significant losses in the 2026 elections, the implications could be profound. The existing voter base, already frustrated by the insular nature of political decision-making, may feel even more alienated by a lack of effective representation. This scenario risks creating a cascading effect, where disillusioned citizens disengage from the political process altogether, perceiving it as a futile exercise in voicing their concerns (Hodge & Greve, 2007; Hooghe & Marks, 2017).

A Republican resurgence could embolden the party’s more extreme factions, leading to the adoption of regressive policies that threaten civil rights, healthcare, and social welfare programs. In response, the Democratic Party might reassess its strategic priorities, potentially drifting even further from progressive principles in a desperate bid to reclaim lost voters. This shift could solidify the notion that compromise and centrism are the only viable paths to electoral success, effectively stifling more radical movements advocating for systemic change (Mudde & Kaltwasser, 2018; Roy, 2005).

In this context, the loss would not merely be electoral; it would be ideological. It would reinforce a political landscape dominated by fear of backlash rather than one characterized by bold vision and progressive values. A Republican victory would extend far beyond legislative measures, fostering a climate where the status quo goes unchallenged, and valuable opportunities for reform are squandered (Bermeo, 2016; Bovaird, 2007).

Moreover, should the Democrats lose in 2026, the crumbling faith in the political system could lead to an exodus from civic participation. Citizens who feel their voices are no longer heard may withdraw completely, further entrenching the disconnect between representatives and their constituents. Consequently, the resulting political apathy could lead to a dangerous cycle: with fewer participating voters, the elected officials could cater even more to the interests of a powerful minority, further alienating the majority. This outcome would jeopardize the very foundations of democracy and governance.

The implications of such a loss are not limited to the Democratic Party alone; it poses systemic risks to the political fabric of the nation. As parties shift to solidify their bases, the potential for extreme polarization increases. The resulting political landscape could encourage a zero-sum mindset, where both parties see each other as adversaries rather than as collaborators seeking common ground. This environment could escalate conflicts in governance, making it increasingly difficult to address urgent issues such as climate change, healthcare access, and social justice, which require collaboration across party lines (Cerra & Saxena, 2008; Hodge & Greve, 2007).

The ideological implications would extend beyond immediate legislative battles, reinforcing a culture of fear and retribution, where policymakers are hesitant to champion bold reforms that might provoke backlash from their bases or from opposition party leaders. The shrinking space for alternative political voices—whether from within the party or from external movements—could further entrench the status quo, leading to stagnation in policy innovation and a disconnection from the rising expectations of constituents who demand progressive change.

What If the Democrats Win Big in 2026?

Conversely, should the Democrats achieve a substantial victory in the 2026 elections, the party’s trajectory could be fundamentally altered. A resounding win would likely empower more progressive elements within the party and bolster calls for systemic reforms in crucial areas such as healthcare, climate change, and income inequality. This victory could signal to Democratic leadership that a bold approach is not only viable but necessary for engaging an increasingly disillusioned electorate (Bennett & Iyengar, 2008; Loveman, 2011).

However, such a win comes with its own set of challenges. The pressure to deliver on ambitious promises would mount, placing the party at risk of overreach and potential backlash. Should the Democrats fail to enact significant reforms, the window for capitalizing on public support could close rapidly, leading to renewed calls for accountability from constituents. Internal divisions within the party could become more pronounced as various factions vie for control over its future direction (Schofield, 2003; Stokes, 1963). Notably, the recent Senate actions illustrate a lack of coherent strategy and messaging, as evidenced by Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer’s abrupt pivot from advocating for a harder line to capitulating within a day. This inconsistency further alienates the base, as voters perceive a lack of seriousness in addressing their concerns.

The 2026 elections could also catalyze a reevaluation of party identity. A decisive victory might embolden those advocating for a more progressive platform, challenging the centrist status quo within the party. This ideological shift could result in renewed discussion about what it means to be a Democrat in contemporary America, with calls to prioritize urgent issues like climate action, healthcare reform, and systemic racial and economic injustices (Mudde & Kaltwasser, 2018; Roy, 2005).

Yet, the prospect of a Democratic triumph is fraught with complexities. The internal party dynamics may become messy, as various factions within the party interpret the electoral mandate differently. Progressives could push for sweeping reforms, while centrists may argue for a more measured approach. The resulting friction might hinder the party’s ability to present a unified agenda, complicating efforts to implement significant change (Bennett & Iyengar, 2008; Loveman, 2011). This scenario places an enormous burden on party leadership to navigate these internal conflicts while maintaining public support.

Another complication stems from the potential for heightened Republican voter mobilization following a decisive Democratic win. A galvanized Republican base may increase turnout in subsequent elections, leading to a precarious political dynamic where both parties oscillate between seeking validation from their extremist factions and attempting to appeal to the broader electorate. This cycle could perpetuate a contentious political climate, increasing the risk of polarization and further alienation among voters (Jasper & Flyvbjerg, 1999; Van Biezen & Poguntke, 2014).

Furthermore, there is a danger that, in their pursuit of ambitious legislation, Democrats might overlook the need for effective communication and narrative-building surrounding their policies. If the electorate does not perceive tangible benefits from new initiatives, the potential for public skepticism remains high. The Democrats’ success or failure to articulate the positive impacts of their policies could influence their longevity and the overall trajectory of progressive movements in the U.S. political landscape.

What If Political Disengagement Escalates Among Voters?

The ongoing trend of political disengagement among voters poses dire consequences for U.S. democracy. A growing perception that political decisions are dictated by strategic maneuvering rather than genuine accountability may precipitate widespread disenchantment with electoral politics. This disengagement could manifest in reduced voter turnout, apathy toward civic engagement, and a significant shift in the political landscape (Cerra & Saxena, 2008; Diamond, 1994).

As citizens withdraw from the democratic process, the institutions underpinning democratic governance could become increasingly fragile. A diminishing number of voices participating in elections exacerbates the divide between the electorate and elected officials, creating an insulated political class. This detachment threatens not only the outcomes of future elections but also the legitimacy of governance itself—where elected officials prioritize the interests of a vocal minority over the majority, further reinforcing the narrative that democracy is failing to deliver on its promises (Akhavan, 1998; Eisinger, 1973).

The growing sentiment that politicians prioritize their political survival over meaningful representation cultivates a cycle of disengagement, where citizens feel their participation is futile. As disengagement escalates, the risk of social unrest increases, particularly among marginalized communities that feel systematically excluded from decision-making processes. Such dynamics may fuel grassroots movements aimed at redistributing power and genuine representation, as communities rally to reclaim agency over their political futures (Harris et al., 2010; Keele, 2007).

The crisis of representation risks inciting social unrest and calls for radical change as communities feel increasingly disenfranchised. The resulting frustration may serve as a catalyst for grassroots movements that seek to reclaim a sense of agency within a political system perceived as unresponsive and out of touch. This could lead to a revival of activist movements that challenge the existing political framework, advocating for reforms that prioritize equity, sustainability, and social justice. In this context, the potential for political volatility grows, as the traditional mechanisms of governance struggle to regain public trust amid rising discontent.

Additionally, political disengagement can exacerbate systemic inequalities. The voices of marginalized groups—whose concerns often go unaddressed—face further alienation as they withdraw from the political process. This disenfranchisement may lead to a lack of representation on critical issues, entrenching societal divides and perpetuating a cycle of inequity. As political leaders neglect the voices of disillusioned voters, citizens may react by turning to extreme measures, whether through protest movements or the support of fringe candidates that promise radical change (Hodge & Greve, 2007; Hooghe & Marks, 2017).

Strategic Maneuvers for All Players Involved

In light of these evolving dynamics, strategic maneuvers from all political players are imperative. For Democrats, embracing more transparent and accountable decision-making processes is vital. This includes fostering greater communication with constituents, aligning actions with public needs, and actively working to regain trust through authentic outreach. Empowering grassroots organizations to influence policy discussions could also prove beneficial, demonstrating the party’s commitment to valuing diverse voices in shaping legislative priorities (Hodge & Greve, 2007; Mair & van Biezen, 2001).

Democrats must cultivate a narrative that acknowledges the challenges and frustrations of their constituents while taking tangible steps to address these issues. This entails a more proactive approach to policy formulation, where constituents are engaged as partners in shaping legislation that serves their needs. By prioritizing inclusive governance, the Democratic Party could begin to rebuild trust and reestablish connections with their base.

Republicans, too, must confront their internal divisions more substantively. Engaging in meaningful dialogues within the party about their policy positions could foster a more cohesive strategy that balances the concerns of diverse voter groups while maintaining a principled stance on core issues. Emphasizing accountability and responsiveness to constituents will be essential in preventing the alienation of moderate voters. Republicans must also address growing concerns around extremism within their ranks; failing to do so risks alienating not only moderate Republicans but also independent voters seeking pragmatic solutions to pressing national issues.

Moreover, independent and third-party movements have the potential to reshape the political landscape. As disillusionment with mainstream parties grows, these movements can provide alternative visions for governance. Uniting various factions within the left and right could challenge the existing political order, leading to increased demands for representation and accountability. By articulating clear policies that resonate with the public, these movements can invigorate democratic engagement and contribute to a more vibrant political discourse.

The future of U.S. democracy hinges not only on electoral outcomes but also on the collective willingness of all players to engage in meaningful, transparent, and inclusive governance. The lessons from the recent Senate cloture vote extend far beyond legislative strategy; they challenge the very foundation of representing democratic principles in a rapidly changing political climate. Political actors must recognize the urgency of this moment and respond with authenticity and commitment to the democratic ideals that underlie their governance. In a time when voters seek authenticity, the call for a more vigorous and fearless approach to politics grows louder, and those who heed this call may find themselves at the forefront of a transformative movement.

title: “Democratic Cloture Vote: Political Theater or Genuine Governance?” date: 2025-03-25T10:45:05Z draft: false summary: “Jon Stewart’s criticism of the Senate Democrats highlights concerns about political accountability in a polarized landscape. Are strategic maneuvers undermining democracy?” tags: [politics, democracy, Senate, Jon Stewart, Democratic Party, governance] author: “Dr. Anthony Lindsay” categories: [opinion] social_share: true show_toc: true reading_time: true word_count: true slug: “2025-03-25-democratic-cloture-vote-political-theater-or-genuine-governance” featured_image: “/images/default-thumbnail.jpg”

TL;DR: In March 2025, the Senate’s vote on a Republican-led continuing resolution revealed divisions within the Democratic Party. Jon Stewart criticized the move, suggesting it prioritizes electoral survival over genuine representation. The potential outcomes of the 2026 elections could significantly alter the political landscape, raising questions about accountability, representation, and the risks of political disengagement among voters.

The Political Theater of Cloture: Implications for Democracy and Governance

In March 2025, the U.S. Senate faced a pivotal moment in its long history of budgetary maneuvering and political strategy as it deliberated on a Republican-led continuing resolution aimed at preventing a government shutdown. This vote not only underscored the tactical decisions at play but also revealed deeper ideological currents within the Democratic Party.

Key Points of Division:

  • Ten Senate Democrats voted in favor of cloture, enabling the resolution to advance.
  • A majority of Democrats, particularly those vulnerable ahead of the 2026 elections, opposed it.

This division raises critical questions about political accountability and the motivations driving voting behavior, particularly in a context where self-preservation often supersedes genuine representation (Diamond, 1994; Eberhard, 2005).

Consider the historical context of 19th-century American politics, where the issue of slavery led to the fracturing of political parties and set the stage for the Civil War. Just as then, we are witnessing a moment where ideological divides threaten to overshadow the urgent needs of the public. Jon Stewart’s critique of this decision reflects a growing disillusionment among voters who increasingly perceive political actions as mere performances, devoid of any authentic commitment to their constituents. Stewart’s suggestion that Democratic leadership sacrificed a unified front to shield its more vulnerable members from electoral backlash resonates deeply. It suggests a troubling trend: Are politicians prioritizing their own survival over the pressing needs and concerns of their constituents? (Akhavan, 1998; Green, 2013).

The ramifications of this political theater extend far beyond immediate budgetary concerns:

  • Erosion of Trust: As political theater overshadows substantive policy discussions, we risk a continued erosion of public trust in government.
  • Polarized Environment: The contrasting strategies of Democrats and Republicans reveal a deeply polarized political environment, where accountability and representation are often sacrificed for tactical advantage.
  • Crisis in Governance: This crisis threatens to undermine the integrity of democratic institutions themselves.

The necessity of a functioning government is paramount. Just as the framers of the Constitution intended for a system of checks and balances to prevent tyranny, a compromise in operational frameworks can lead to a catastrophic erosion of that very system. Citizens’ frustration with a government that appears detached from their realities will only intensify, shaping the political landscape in ways that may echo the divisions of our nation’s past.

What If the Democrats Lose the 2026 Elections?

Should the Democrats suffer significant losses in the 2026 elections, the implications could be profound, echoing historical precedents where political shifts led to societal rifts. The fallout could be reminiscent of the 1994 midterm elections, when the Republican Party’s Contract with America reinvigorated its base and shifted the political landscape dramatically.

  • Alienation of Voter Base: The existing voter base, already frustrated by the insular nature of political decision-making, may feel even more isolated by a lack of effective representation. Much like during the aftermath of the 1968 elections, where disenchanted voters turned away from mainstream politics, today’s Democrats risk alienating those seeking progressive change.

  • Cascading Effects: Disillusioned citizens may disengage from the political process altogether, viewing it as a futile exercise in voicing their concerns (Hodge & Greve, 2007; Hooghe & Marks, 2017). Are we on the brink of a similar disengagement seen during the 2000 elections, where record low voter turnout signaled a deep-rooted disillusionment?

  • Republican Resurgence: This could embolden the party’s more extreme factions, leading to regressive policies threatening civil rights, healthcare, and social welfare programs. As history has shown, such power vacuums can lead to the rise of radical elements, often drowning out moderate voices.

In response, the Democratic Party might reassess its strategic priorities, which could lead to:

  • Drifting from Progressive Principles: A desperate bid to reclaim lost voters might push Democrats further from their core values, potentially sacrificing ideals for the sake of political survival. This mirrors the failures of past political parties that compromised their foundational principles and ultimately lost their identity.

  • Compromise Stifling Change: This shift could validate the notion that compromise and centrism are the only paths to electoral success, stifling radical movements advocating for systemic change (Mudde & Kaltwasser, 2018; Roy, 2005). When did compromise become a badge of honor rather than a last resort?

The ideological implications would extend beyond immediate legislative battles:

  • Fear Dominating Over Vision: It would reinforce a political landscape dominated by fear of backlash rather than bold vision and progressive values. The climate could become reminiscent of the post-9/11 political era, where fear overshadowed innovation.

  • Compromised Governance: A Republican victory would create an environment where the status quo goes unchallenged, squandering opportunities for reform (Bermeo, 2016; Bovaird, 2007). Without a driving vision for change, how long before we see our societal standards slip into complacency?

Moreover, if Democrats lose in 2026, the crumbling faith in the political system could lead to:

  • Exodus from Civic Participation: Citizens who feel unheard may withdraw, entrenching the disconnect between representatives and constituents. This could mirror the rise of alternative movements and nontraditional parties in history when citizens felt abandoned by the mainstream.

  • Dangerous Cycle of Apathy: Apathy could lead to elected officials catering to a powerful minority, jeopardizing the foundations of democracy. Are we prepared to watch our democratic institutions erode because citizens opted out of participation, as seen in various historical contexts?

The implications of such a loss are systemic, risking:

  • Increased Polarization: As parties solidify their bases, extreme polarization could rise, complicating collaboration on urgent issues like climate change, healthcare access, and social justice (Cerra & Saxena, 2008; Hodge & Greve, 2007). Will we find ourselves in a scenario where the middle ground is so fraught that progress on vital issues becomes nearly impossible?

What If the Democrats Win Big in 2026?

Conversely, should the Democrats achieve a substantial victory in the 2026 elections, the party’s trajectory could be fundamentally altered, much like the transformative impact of the New Deal in the 1930s. A resounding win would likely empower more progressive elements within the party, bolstering calls for systemic reforms in crucial areas such as healthcare, climate change, and income inequality. Just as the New Deal reshaped the relationship between the government and American citizens, a successful Democratic agenda could redefine the role of government in addressing socioeconomic challenges.

  • Empowerment of Progressives: A decisive victory might embolden progressives to advocate for urgent issues like climate action and healthcare reform (Mudde & Kaltwasser, 2018; Roy, 2005). Imagine a scenario where the party rallies behind a Green New Deal, pushing for renewable energy initiatives that not only combat climate change but also create jobs. Would such a bold move inspire a new generation of voters, similar to how FDR’s policies rallied a nation during the Great Depression?

  • Internal Pressure: The pressure to deliver on ambitious promises would mount, risking overreach and potential backlash. Should they fail to enact significant reforms, the window for capitalizing on public support could close rapidly, leading to renewed calls for accountability from constituents. Internal divisions within the party could become more pronounced as various factions vie for control of its future direction (Schofield, 2003; Stokes, 1963).

The 2026 elections could also catalyze a reevaluation of party identity:

  • Challenging the Centrist Status Quo: A significant Democratic victory could invigorate factions within the party to push for policies that resonate with the electorate, further distancing themselves from centrist positions that have historically limited their appeal.

However, the prospect of a Democratic triumph is fraught with complexities:

  • Navigating Internal Conflicts: Party leadership must navigate internal conflicts while maintaining public support. Can they balance the demands of progressive members without alienating moderate voters, or will they be caught in a tug-of-war that undermines their effectiveness?

  • Heightened Republican Mobilization: A significant Democratic win could invigorate Republican turnout in subsequent elections, perpetuating a contentious political climate. History has shown us that victories often lead to renewed fervor among opposition parties, raising the question: how will the Democrats prepare for the inevitable backlash?

Additionally, Democrats must avoid overlooking the need for effective communication surrounding their policies. If the electorate does not perceive tangible benefits from new initiatives, skepticism will remain high. Their success or failure to articulate these impacts will shape the future trajectory of progressive movements in the U.S. political landscape.

What If Political Disengagement Escalates Among Voters?

The ongoing trend of political disengagement poses dire consequences for U.S. democracy:

  • Crisis of Representation: A growing perception that political decisions are dictated by strategic maneuvering rather than genuine accountability may lead to widespread disenchantment with electoral politics (Cerra & Saxena, 2008; Diamond, 1994). Historically, similar sentiments have been observed during pivotal moments in American history, such as the post-Watergate era, when public trust in government plummeted, leading to increased cynicism and lower voter turnout.

As citizens withdraw from the democratic process, the institutions underpinning governance may become increasingly fragile:

  • Insulated Political Class: A diminishing number of voices participating in elections exacerbates the divide between the electorate and elected officials, undermining legitimacy (Akhavan, 1998; Eisinger, 1973). This can be likened to a ship navigating through fog with fewer crew members; as the number of participants decreases, the ship’s course becomes increasingly uncertain and unsteady.

The sentiment that politicians prioritize survival over meaningful representation creates a cycle of disengagement. As this escalates, the risk of social unrest increases, particularly among marginalized communities feeling systematically excluded. This may fuel grassroots movements to reclaim agency in political decisions (Harris et al., 2010; Keele, 2007).

Political disengagement exacerbates systemic inequalities. The voices of marginalized groups may face further alienation, leading to a lack of representation on critical issues:

  • Turn to Extreme Measures: Citizens disillusioned by neglect may resort to protests or support fringe candidates promising radical change (Hodge & Greve, 2007; Hooghe & Marks, 2017). Consider the historical parallels with movements like the Tea Party or Occupy Wall Street, which emerged in response to feelings of disenfranchisement and frustration with traditional political structures. If disengagement continues, what new movements might emerge to challenge the status quo?

Strategic Maneuvers for All Players Involved

In light of these evolving dynamics, strategic maneuvers from all political players are imperative:

  • For Democrats: Embracing transparent and accountable decision-making processes is vital. This includes:
    • Fostering communication with constituents
    • Aligning actions with public needs
    • Regaining trust through authentic outreach

Empowering grassroots organizations to influence policy discussions could demonstrate the party’s commitment to valuing diverse voices (Hodge & Greve, 2007; Mair & van Biezen, 2001). Much like the suffragette movement, which leveraged grassroots mobilization to demand women’s rights, today’s Democratic Party could harness similar grassroots energy to amplify underrepresented viewpoints and create a more inclusive political dialogue.

Republicans must also engage in meaningful dialogues within the party about their policy positions to foster a cohesive strategy that balances diverse voter concerns while maintaining core principles. Addressing growing concerns around extremism is essential to prevent the alienation of moderate Republicans and independent voters. This need for balance echoes the historical rift within the Whig Party that ultimately led to its dissolution; failure to address internal divisions can lead to significant political consequences.

Independent and third-party movements can reshape the political landscape as disillusionment with mainstream parties grows. By articulating clear policies that resonate with the public, these movements can invigorate democratic engagement. Just as Ross Perot’s candidacy in the 1992 election forced major parties to reconsider economic issues, today’s independent movements have the potential to challenge entrenched norms and introduce new ideas.

The future of U.S. democracy hinges on the collective willingness of all players to engage in meaningful, transparent, and inclusive governance. The lessons from the recent Senate cloture vote challenge the very foundation of democratic representation. Political actors must recognize the urgency of this moment and respond with authenticity and commitment to the democratic ideals underpinning their governance. In a time when voters seek authenticity, the call for a more vigorous and fearless approach to politics grows louder. How will each party adapt to this demand, and who will lead the charge toward a more unified political future?

References

Akhavan, P. (1998). Justice in the Hague, Peace in the Former Yugoslavia? A Commentary on the United Nations War Crimes Tribunal. Human Rights Quarterly, 20(3), 737-813. https://doi.org/10.1353/hrq.1998.0034

Bermeo, N. (2016). On Democratic Backsliding. Journal of Democracy, 27(1), 5-19. https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.2016.0012

Bovaird, T. (2007). Beyond Engagement and Participation: User and Community Coproduction of Public Services. Public Administration Review, 67(5), 846-860. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2007.00773.x

Cerra, V., & Saxena, S. (2008). Growth Dynamics: The Myth of Economic Recovery. American Economic Review, 98(1), 439-457. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.98.1.439

Diamond, L. (1994). Rethinking Civil Society: Toward Democratic Consolidation. Journal of Democracy, 5(3), 4-17. https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.1994.0041

Eberhard, W. B. (2005). Past Imperfect Facts, Fictions, Fraud-American History from Bancroft and Parkman to Ambrose, Bellesiles, Ellis, and Goodwin. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 82(1), 225-227. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769900508200119

Harris, A., Wyn, J., & Younes, S. (2010). Beyond apathetic or activist youth. Young, 18(1), 103-119. https://doi.org/10.1177/110330880901800103

Hodge, G., & Greve, C. (2007). Public–Private Partnerships: An International Performance Review. Public Administration Review, 67(3), 389-401. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2007.00736.x

Hooghe, L., & Marks, G. (2017). Cleavage Structures in Political Opportunity*. In The Oxford Handbook of Political Participation in Europe.

Jasper, J. M., & Flyvbjerg, B. (1999). Rationality and Power: Democracy in Practice. Social Forces, 78(4), 1107-1129. https://doi.org/10.2307/3005579

Keele, L. R. (2007). Social Capital and the Dynamics of Trust in Government. American Journal of Political Science, 51(2), 328-344. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2007.00248.x

Mair, P., & van Biezen, I. (2001). Party Membership in Twenty European Democracies, 1980-2000. Party Politics, 7(1), 5-21. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354068801007001001

Mudde, C., & Kaltwasser, C. R. (2018). Studying Populism in Comparative Perspective: Reflections on the Contemporary and Future Research Agenda. Comparative Political Studies, 51(1), 7-32. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414018789490

Schofield, N. (2003). Political Game Theory: A New Approach to the Study of Political Institutions. American Political Science Review, 97(1), 83-96. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055403001306

Stokes, D. E. (1963). Spatial Competition and the Politics of the New Deal. Journal of Politics, 25(4), 534-550. https://doi.org/10.2307/2127241

Van Biezen, I., & Poguntke, T. (2014). The Decline of Membership-based Politics. Party Politics, 20(1), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354068813519969

← Prev Next →