We seek to extend discourse on“the reconstructive presidency” to the edge of new frontiers in two interrelated ways. First, we argue that reconstructive presidents act within critical junctures in which they exploit periodic opportunities to revitalize enervated political regimes, but that failure to exploit such opportunities can also occur. Second, we clarify the tasks necessary for reconstructive success, contending that reconstructive presidents must (a) shift the main axis of partisan cleavage, (b) assemble a new majority coalition, and (c) institutionalize a new political regime.Through conducting typical and crucial case studies, we show how reconstructive dynamics unfold in either a straightforward or protracted manner depending on whether presidents initially handed reconstructive opportunities, via encountering enervated political conditions, succeed in accomplishing the tasks we delineate. In doing so, we depart from previous interpretations and recast the “System of 1896” as a successful reconstruction.

No abstract

ObjectiveDespite the rise of two‐party politics in the American South, most state legislative elections in the region continue to feature only one major‐party candidate. I offer a new account of changes in partisan contestation of state legislative races in the region that centers on the growing importance of constituency partisanship over time.MethodUsing an original data set of district‐level presidential vote share between 1984 and 2012, I examine the changing effect of district partisanship on uncontestedness. I then estimate multivariate models predicting uncontested seats in 1988, 2000, and 2012.ResultsBetween 1984 and 2012, the effect of incumbency on uncontestedness declines while the effect of partisanship rises.ConclusionThe processes accounting for uncontested seats in southern legislative races have changed. Although uncontestedness in earlier periods was primarily driven by the incumbency advantage, in the contemporary period it is largely a result of the racially driven partisan sort of the southern electorate.

The half-missing piece is race. Starr is so deft at sketching this theme, I wish he had made more of it. After all, oligarchy as populism entrenched itself in the South for almost a century, and, starting in the 1970s, right-wing counterrevolutionaries found traction with white voters by racializing the welfare state in both the United States and Europe. The new populism has deep roots in whiteness as well as inequality. Entrenchment powerfully sketches the consequences. Entrenchment stands in the grand narrative tradition of Barrington Moore, Ira Katznelson, and, well, Paul Starr. It takes a simple idea, reveals its complexities, explores it across history, and ends with a stark warning for our own time.

State legislative elections in the United States have long exhibited relatively low contestation rates. Between 2002 and 2016, for example, the percentage of state legislative seats fully contested by the two major parties in even-year elections never reached more than 63.6% and was as low as 54.6%.1 Indeed, some states always see fewer than one third of their legislative seats contested. It is not surprising that local media around the country routinely lament the low level of competition in statehouse races.2