In a kind of “Sequel” to Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s The Gulag Archipelago (quoted throughout), with Solzhenitsyn’s intellect, honesty and intense passion for speaking Truth William Baptiste unravels 380 years of bad philosophy that has resulted in Marxism, anti-scientific Postmodernism developed by Marxists to protect Marxism from facts, and current Neo-Marxist Identity Politics which foments racial hatred, which all frequently accompany legal human-killing abortion, which was first legalized 100 Years ago in 1920 Marxist Soviet Russia as a prelude to legalizing the genocide of millions of William’s ethnic heritage. Lincoln said, “A house divided against itself cannot stand . . . it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other.” The divisive fundamental incompatibility between democracy built on Equal Human Rights and legal slavery/legal abortion which both deny Equal Human Rights to all humans will incessantly scream for resolution, and in the end we will have to keep democracy and lose legal abortion (as we lost legal slavery), or else keep legal abortion and lose democracy. Jordan Peterson’s fellow Canadian intellectual, non-partisan thinker & logician William Baptiste, is fed up with Pro-Choice ‘Creeping Totalitarianism’ taking away normal democratic freedoms of speech, expression, assembly, conscience & religion of Pro-Life Human Rights Advocates, including real doctors who follow the 2500-year Hippocratic Medical Tradition that doctors don’t kill. Officially Pro-Choice political parties in his country and others keep asininely insisting the Abortion Debate (the Human Rights for All Humans Debate) is “settled” in their favor, all while they pass totalitarian laws making peaceful Pro-Life Human Rights Advocacy a crime in order to silence the Free Speech of Pro-Lifers. All because Pro-Choice politicians simply cannot win a respectful, intellectually honest, intelligent, rational, scientific and rigorously logical debate about abortion. Abortion which was first legalized by the evil Soviets & Nazis specifically because neither believed that killing humans is wrong. A proper, intelligent and intellectually honest Human-Rights-educated Abortion Debate (Human Rights for All Humans Debate) has never occurred, neither in the author’s country nor anywhere else. Pro-Life Equals Pro-Democracy is William Baptiste’s initial contribution to an honest, intelligent dialogue which actually considers and does not ignore established facts of Human Rights History and Biological Science; a dialogue which is conducted honestly according to sound logic, avoiding the logical fallacies of the intellectually dishonest (which include every single argument typically proposed for legal abortion). Pro-Life Equals Pro-Democracy with its Intellectual Honesty Challenge intends to both ACTUALLY START and SUCCESSFULLY END the Human Rights for All Humans Debate (the Abortion Debate) Once and For All; and Proclaims THE THINKING REVOLUTION to Protect Free Democracy For Centuries. When judged according to the objective standards of Science and Logic - and undisputed facts of Human Rights History - the Pro-Choice position for legal abortion is revealed as not even remotely intellectually defensible, and not even remotely acceptable in a LASTING democracy, which can only last on Democracy’s historic Pro-Life foundations. As Solzhenitsyn challenged the genocidal Marxist Soviet Communist Party, William Baptiste challenges every Pro-Choice Political Party which follows their legal human-killing abortion precedent to account for themselves before the public and repent of their totalitarian legal human-killing abortion evil – as intellectual honesty demands. WilliamBaptisteHumanRightsAndFreedomsForever.com

The Christian Right is frequently accused of threatening democratic values. But in The Democratic Virtues of the Christian Right, Jon Shields argues that religious conservatives have in fact dramatically increased and improved democratic participation and that they are far more civil and reasonable than is commonly believed. Shields interviewed leaders of more than thirty Christian Right organizations, observed movement activists in six American cities, and analyzed a wide variety of survey data and movement media. His conclusions are surprising: the Christian Right has reinvigorated American politics and fulfilled New Left ideals by mobilizing a previously alienated group and by refocusing politics on the contentious ideological and moral questions that motivate citizens. Shields also finds that, largely for pragmatic reasons, the vast majority of Christian Right leaders encourage their followers to embrace deliberative norms in the public square, including civility and secular reasoning. At the same time, Shields highlights a tension between participatory and deliberative ideals since Christian Right leaders also nurture moral passions, prejudices, and dogmas to propel their movement. Nonetheless, the Christian Right's other democratic virtues help contain civic extremism, sharpen the thinking of activists, and raise the level and tenor of political debate for all Americans.

High-profile controversies surrounding the funding of political parties have shown how inequalities in wealth can enter the political process. The growth of the professional lobbying of MPs and the executive raises similar questions about money in politics. More broadly, inequalities emerge in terms of the opportunities the public have to participate in political debate. This analysis of the ways wealth can be used to influence politics in Britain explores the threat posed to the principle of political equality. As well as examining lobbying and party funding, the discussion also focuses on the ownership and control of the media, the chance to be heard on the internet and the impact of the privatisation of public spaces on rights to assemble and protest. Looking at this range of political activities, the author proposes various strategies designed to protect the integrity of British democracy and stop inequalities in wealth becoming inequalities in politics.

Do the religious affiliations of elected officials shape the way they vote on such key issues as abortion, homosexuality, defense spending, taxes, and welfare spending? In Religion, Politics, and Polarization: How Religiopolitical Conflict is Changing Congress and American Democracy,William D’Antonio, Steven A. Tuch and Josiah R. Baker trace the influence of religion and party in the U.S. Congress over time. For almost four decades these key issues have competed for public attention with health care, war, terrorism, and the growing inequity between the incomes of the middle classes and those of corporate America. The authors examine several contemporary issues and trace the increasing polarization in Congress. They examine whether abortion, defense and welfare spending, and taxes are uniquely polarizing or, rather, models of a more general pattern of increasing ideological division in the U.S. Congress. By examining the impact of religion on these key issues the authors effectively address the question of how the various religious denominations have shaped the House and Senate. Throughout the book they draw on key roll call votes, survey data, and extensive background research to argue that the political ideologies of both parties have become grounded in distinctive religious visions of the good society, in turn influencing the voting patterns of elected officials.

From party polarization, elections, and internal party politics, to the evolution of the U.S. presidency, John S. Jackson's new book has something for everyone interested in American politics. Beginning with a discussion of the creation of the U.S. government to the formation of today's political powerhouses, Jackson provides a narrative sweep of American party history like none other. Unique to this book is a detailed breakdown of the evolution of political parties from 1832 to the current era. Jackson explains how the reform era came to be, as well as how it produced the polarized party era we have today. In doing so, he guides the reader to an appreciation of where U.S. party politics originated and the aspirations of those who helped create the current system. Jackson also examines the internal mechanisms and personalities of the Democratic and Republican parties. He compares multiple presidential elections, thus telling a broader story of the unfolding of today's party polarization and gridlock. He also explores the theoretical meaning of the changes observed in the parties from the responsible party model perspective. The themes of continuity and change are set in the context of group-think versus rational decisionmaking. Specific focus is given to political elites who are sophisticated about politics and who make strategic decisions, but are also bound by their humanity and occasionally fail to see the right deci-sion due to their own personal biases. This book will be particularly useful for those who want to explore polarization, the responsible parties model, the rational actor model, and anyone who wants to better understand elections, party politics, and the evolution of the presidency.

The political philosopher Ryan T. Anderson, bestselling author of When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Moment, teams up with the pro-life journalist Alexandra DeSanctis to expose the catastrophic failure—social, political, legal, and personal—of legalized abortion. Hope in the Ruins of Roe Now that the Supreme Court has overturned Roe v. Wade and returned abortion law to the democratic process, a powerful new book reframes the coming debate: Our fifty-year experiment with unlimited abortion has harmed everyone—even its most passionate proponents. Women, men, families, the law, politics, medicine, the media—and, of course, children (born and unborn)—have all been brutalized by the culture of death fostered by Roe v. Wade. Abortion hollows out marriage and the family. It undermines the rule of law and corrupts our political system. It turns healers into executioners and “women’s health” into a euphemism for extermination. Ryan T. Anderson, a compelling and reasoned voice in our most contentious cultural debates, and the pro-life journalist Alexandra DeSanctis expose the false promises of the abortion movement and explain why it has made everything worse. Five decades after Roe, everyone has an opinion about abortion. But after reading Tearing Us Apart, no one will think about it in the same way.

Top scholars in the field survey the study of elections and democracy

Providing an in-depth analysis of public opinion, including its origins in political socialization, its role in the electoral process, and the impact of the media, American Public Opinion goes beyond a simple presentation of data to include a critical analysis of the role of public opinion in American democracy. New to the 11th Edition Updates all data through the 2020 elections and includes early polling through 2022. Pays increased attention to polarization. Expands focus on support for democratic values in the Trump and post-Trump era. Covers new voting patterns related to race, ethnicity, and gender. Expands coverage of political misinformation, media bias, and negativity, especially in social media. Defends political polling even in the wake of 2020 failings.

The author states that the Democratic campaign in 2020 needs to have a more cohesive structure than in 2016. The book puts forth the basic tenets of the Democratic Party and proposes and discusses various progressive ideas (examples: Medicare for All, national referendum on Pro-Choice vs. Pro-Life, replacing carbon fuels with hydrogen)which need to be analyzed and decisions made prior to inclusion in the 2020 campaign platform.

Abortion Politics, Women's Movements and the Democratic State examines the impact of women's movements since the 1960s on the policy-making processes determining abortion laws. The impact of women's movements is assessed in terms of their success in increasing the democratic representation of women generally and movement organizations specifically. Rather than asking 'how many women are in political office' this study asks 'to what extent are women included in the day to day process of making decisions?' Of special interest in this project is the extent to which states, through establishment of women's policy agencies, have assisted, opposed, or ignored the demands of movement activists for access to power and for feminist abortion policies. Researchers have examined these questions in policy debates over the last four decades in 11 advanced industrial democracies: Austria, Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Great Britain, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, and the United States. The findings of this cross-national longitudinal study document that women's movements have been successful in gaining both substantive and descriptive representation on abortion policy in a majority of the 32 debates studied. The ability of women's policy offices to provide a necessary and effective linkage between women's movement activism and increased democratic representation in policy- making varies both cross-nationally and over time. The openness of policy subsystems and the status of the parties on the left are factors that interact with variations in movement cohesion and resources to account for these variations.