For a classical (non-US) Political Theory graduate level core course, the list will look more or less like this:

• Plato - Trial of Socrates (Apology, Crito, and Phaedo) and Republic (maybe Gorgias too)
• Aristotle - Nicomachean Ethics and The Politics
• Cicero - De re publica
• St. Thomas Aquinas - usually a collection of short political writings/fragments, otherwise On Law Morality and Politics
• Machiavelli - Discourses on Livy and The Prince
• Hobbes - Leviathan (all of it ... don't skip the last 2 sections)
• Locke - Essay Concerning Human Understanding and The Second Treatise
• Rousseau - Discourse on Inequality and The Social Contract
• Edmund Burke - Reflections on the Revolution in France
• Kant - Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Moral and Perpetual Peace
• Hegel - Elements of the Philosophy of Right
• Marx - A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right, Theses on Feuerbach, On The Jewish Question, V. 1 Ch. 1 of Capital, The Communist Manifesto
• JS Mill - On Representative Government, Utilitarianism, and On Liberty
• Nietzsche - The Gay Science and On the Genealogy of Morality (the section on the Master/Slave dialectic from Beyond Good and Evil is useful if you want to engage later post-structuralist, post-colonial, and post-Marxist materials)

Past this point you start getting into late-modern and fully post-modern material. Some useful inclusions here might be: Foucault (for post-structural critique), Fanon (for post-colonial critique), Rawls, Hart and Dworkin (for modern liberal legal and ethical critique).

But this is just Political Theory, which, though fundamental, is not enough to cover off all of a Political Science reading list. I would supplement this with lists for IR and Comparative at the very least, and also possibly Political Economy.

Edit: Added Burke.

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn was a big one, as was The Worldly Philosophers by Robert Heilbroner. I read The Worldly Philosophers my freshman year and switched by degree from PoliSci to Economics.

> OP: theres no money in a polisci degree

Hold my beer

Not academic, but I though former AZ senator, Jeff Flake outlined it pretty well in his book Conscience of a Conservative: A Rejection of Destructive Politics and a Return to Principle .

The Original Compromise, by David Brian Robertson. He was my professor. It's a remarkable book.
https://www.amazon.com/Original-Compromise-Constitutions-Framers-Thinking/dp/0199796297

This person seems more interested in insulting you than having a conversation, but these sentiments don't come from nowhere. I'd encourage you to familiarize yourself with the history of the agency if you are seriously interested in it.

There's a new book out called The Jakarta Method that details some of the CIA's activities during the Cold War that I'd recommend. It's hard to get more recent histories due to document classification, but it will give you a perspective that will help explain why people feel so strongly about this issue.

Use the resources here with a generic RSS feed like this.

Hey- so, I'm just finishing up my second year in college so I'm not the most qualified to answer your questions, but here's some stuff I learned along the way:

• Talk to your career counselors/advisors. They should have great information regarding how to get to grad school, how to look good in employer's eyes, etc. These people get paid to give you those advices and to do it well. They can connect to you to alumni who are in DC or who work in areas you're interested in- that might get you an internship opportunity.

• Talk to your polisci professors! Who is your favorite professor you've had this year? Who taught the most interesting subject or had a fun background? Ask them about their experiences and if they have advices for you. They could have connections you'd benefit from, and if not, you're making connections with the professors.

• For internships, even just googling helps. Do you have a company or organization you admire? I'll just use myself as an example- I love reading The Atlantic Cities, so it would kick ass to work there. I just google, "the atlantic cities internship" and it brings me here. They don't have an internship for undergrads, but I know that I could apply for the Fellowship Program after I graduate. Do you like policy? You could start here. Just go ahead and google. Explore!

Those are some things you could start with. I'm excited that you already have a grad school in mind! But trust me- keep yourself open to options. In the last year, my future projections changed a lot. Don't forget to always give an opportunity a try. Even if not it's in DC, work with an organization that tickles your interest. At this point, any experience is good experience! Good luck!

Start setting goals for improving those weaknesses and track your progress. Breakdown the components of each skill and practice them incrementally. Brain Workshop will give you detailed feedback on your working memory.

Dan Carlin / Danielle Bolelli do a great job in explain the origins of "left and "right" politics in a podcast they did together (link below). They also talk about the movement from the right to rebrand the Nazis as left in order to say that there was no downside to extreme right politics. It basically broke down to the right saying that the Nazis a left wing political movement because it was the "National Socialist Party", while ignoring what they actually stood for. Hitler actually was strongly critical of the left in Mein Kampf. He also named the party and even make the flags red as a means of spitting in the eye of the communists. https://castbox.fm/vb/130124416

hemingway app is good for catching writing style errors too. r/homeworkhelp is where this post belongs if this essay is for a class.

Also, you are flirting with academic dishonesty here, so tread lightly.

This is thetext book most polisci undergrads come into contact with at some point in their academic career. It is an excellent introduction to political theory, very accessible yet informative, and older editions are only 10 bucks.

As an addition to this: I really liked Political Philosophy: A Beginner's Guide for Students and Politicians by Adam Swift. It focuses on topics in contemporary political philosophy, skips the philosophers, and goes straight towards the ideas. Somewhat more advanced would be Will Kymlicka's Contemporary Political Philosophy: An Introduction which is an academic textbook.

I would also recommend reading Tweeting to Power by Dr. Gainous as Trump literally did everything they predicted two years later. Tweeting to Power: The Social Media Revolution in American Politics (Oxford Studies in Digital Politics) https://www.amazon.com/dp/0199965099/ref=cm_sw_r_sm_apa_fabc_HMMGFZSQCB6K7WEWXYHF

Check out David Harvey's Spaces of Global Capitalism if you don't mind a little Marxism.

This is on my list. It's drawn a lot of criticism... which makes me want to read it even more.

How to Make Love to a Despot: An Alternative Foreign Policy for the Twenty-First Century

https://amazon.com/dp/163149659X/

Logic of American Politics (link to amazon) is what my very first college course used. Explains things very well and provides current examples which are cool for pulling up in conversation if you're a nerd like me. It's like $20 used.

The Great Debate, by Yuval Levin, was pretty good imho. Though Levin is a conservative, I thought he gave Paine's more radical views a fair treatment to Burke's conservatism.

Some of mine

The dictator's handbook

The prince

The art of war

Arthashastra

The Prince by Machellivi

The Years of Lyndon Johnson by Caro

The Lion and The Fox James McGregor Burns

The Republic by Plato

Plunkett of Tammany Hall by Riordan (my personal suggestion)

The Art of War by Sun Tzu

On War by Clausewitz

Utopia by Thomas Moore

The Craft of Power by Siu

The Book of Five Rings by Musashi

Meditations by Marcus Aurelius

The Federalist Papers by Hamilton, Madison, Jay

The 48 Laws of Power by Robert Greene

Autocracy, Gordon Tullock

Law, Legislation, and Liberty (3 volumes), Fredrich Hayek

Plato's Republic

Thomas More's Utopia

I would actually say that a broader selection is needed.

Communist Manifesto (Marx)
Rules for Radicals (Alinsky)
Atlas Shrugged (fiction I know but invaluable nonetheless)
Wealth of Nations (Adam Smith)
Common Sense (Thomas Paine)
The Law (by Bastiat)
Economics in One Lesson (Henry Hazlett)
The Federalist Papers
The Prince (Machiavelle)

If you're interested in political economy or political theory what so ever (you should be) I would recommend The Worldly Philosophers

I understand. I would want to know how you framed it. Getting rid of Saddam and overthrowing the Taliban, for a time, is going to have costs and benefits, but the audiences involved in those events are vast and people are going to have very different experiences. In general, though, I'd recommend directing you to Bueno de Mesquita's 2013 book Principles of International Politics. Chapter 14, specifically figure 14.3, shows the changes in democratization resulting from US/EU interventions.

Personally I think describing conflicts like this from the perspective of the audiences in it is the only way to do it justice. Describing the benefits from the perspective of US decision makers, US voters, Iraqi/Afghani leaders and their citizens allows you to look at exactly what it takes to get an intervention to happen. And it also allows you to look into the future to see whether today's or tomorrow's decision makers are going to find themselves in similar circumstances.

I'm with you on the hippie/cult concern. Certainly a group of people who would be interested in having such states are religious groups like you mention. Works like The Benedict Option already show there's interest in it. But that is concerning because I feel like for early network states to gain legitimacy it is probably safer from a PR standpoint if they are agnostic. Surely there will be bad actors who create some weird cult thing...but it is true that when broken down in simple terms the ideas of startup societies can sound sort of cult ish. I like your idea of approaching it first via a legal sandbox. Without the right precedents set, bad actors could ruin the legitimacy of startup societies and the benefits they're able to provide.

Also find it interesting that Balaji chooses to call it a Network "State," as our traditional understanding of state seems to be what startup societies attempt to move away from?

Balaji specifically states that Network states have a founder, but no other mention about how they may be governed. In the case of tech startups with large consumer bases, it's true that tech CEOs lead communities the size of countries (ex: Facebook). But is it really the same? I am curious to know also what sorts of political experiments may happen in these sort of societies. And curious on any speculations you may have?

Congratulations to ur GF! Also it’s very sweet that you’re getting her gifts. I graduated with a poli sci degree in May and my mom gifted me a disappearing bill of rights mug. Your gf will unfortunately be glued to her desk reading a lot of textbooks and caffeine may easily become her best friend so the mug was one of my favorite poli sci related gifts. Best of luck to her! Here’s the link: Disappearing Civil Liberties... https://www.amazon.com/dp/B000M1ERL0?ref=ppx_pop_mob_ap_share

Two things: zlibrary online provides free ebooks for virtually all her course work.

This note book is super cool, especially for taking class notes without a laptop:

https://www.amazon.ca/Rocketbook-Fusion-Smart-Reusable-Notebook/dp/B07ZHZ9VJT/ref=asc_df_B07ZHZ9VJT/?tag=googlemobshop-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=341658168862&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=18279832116800895798&hvpone=&hvptwo=&...

The core documents series out of the Ashbrook Center is pretty solid. It keeps the commentary to a minimum and each book covers something like the “core documents of the Cold War.”

You’d probably like their original 50 Core American Documents: https://www.amazon.com/50-Core-American-Documents-Required-ebook/dp/B00IA6R7CK/ref=nodl_?dplnkId=cbdf23e7-ee20-47c5-9162-8aa1aca88ac0

It’s online for free, but there is an Amazon link.

The French historian Fernand Braudel offers a history of the words "capital" and "capitalist" and "capitalism" at the end of the 3rd volume of Civilization and Capitalism:

https://www.amazon.com/Perspective-World-Civilization-Capitalism-15Th-18th/dp/0520081161/ref=pd_bxgy_img_sccl_1/145-8101240-8104655?pd_rd_w=cRUbJ&pf_rd_p=6b3eefea-7b16-43e9-bc45-2e332cbf99da&pf_rd_r=FVA3HQB1JHYNWP2F4XVJ&pd_rd_r=ef3f31f6-73eb-43cc-9800-d70bddde8c2e&pd_rd_wg=LEbhi&pd_rd_i=0520081161&psc=1

As Braudel says there, the word "capital" had its modern meaning by the late 1700s, and the modern use of the word "capitalist" was given to us by Marx himself. However, the word "capitalism" does not appear in any work published by Marx during his lifetime. The word had a variety of uses in French and German but was used rarely and idiosyncratically by various writers in the mid-1800s. Only during the 1870s does it begin to take on something like its modern French meaning. In the English speaking nations, it did not take on its modern meaning till the 1890s.

If you're in an anglo-speaking country, maybe consider something like Farnsworth's Classical English Rhetoric for common rhetorical devices in speechwriting (it also comes with numerous famous examples in history).

Not every piece of communication written has to be on the level of the Gettysburg Address or Pericles' funeral oration, but being able to transfer the patterns of great speeches over is a useful skill.

Practice is as important as theory, otherwise we would credit ancient China with inventing the constitutional monarchy. This book offers a fascinating overview of the political debate that occurred in the lead up to the Warring States period:

https://www.amazon.com/Emergence-China-Confucius-Ancient-Context/dp/1936166755/

It is fascinating to read that and realize that almost every imaginable political idea was advocated by some school, with the benefits and downsides being articulated in the back-and-forth that arose among the schools. That 300 year debate was, at its time, the most comprehensive political debate that existed in the world.

But practice matters, and China never developed the practice of democracy, nor did Japan or Korea or south east Asia or India. The regions where democracy was actually practiced is fairly limited: mostly just the MidEast and "Europe" broadly defined.

Hey!

I found this one of the most helpful books in guiding my research strategies, it’s around 5$:

https://www.amazon.ca/Guide-Methods-Students-Political-Science/dp/080148457X

This one was An interesting read for international political economy:

https://www.amazon.ca/gp/product/082647389X/ref=dbs_a_def_awm_bibl_vppi_i5

Good luck!

Check out Charles Tilly and Sidney Tarrow, as well as the Cambridge Series in Contentious Politics.

This is a very broad question. I could give you an intro text that covers the basics, but you seem to know that already. So without being more specific, I'd recommend going through the Cambridge Studies in International Relations and see what you want/like.

Based on her work fighting corruption in Afghanistan, and working with the USA military, Sarah Chayes begins to make a list of action items towards the end of her book Thieves of State:

https://www.amazon.com/Thieves-State-Corruption-Threatens-Security-dp-0393239462/dp/0393239462/ref=mt\_other?\_encoding=UTF8&me=&qid=1647789222

I'm sorry to say I won't have time to write a good response this month, but I plan to address this issue next month. I'll be going through the "Mr Putin" book and then after that I'll be going through "Is Journalism Worth Dying For?" which is a collection of writing from Anna Politkovskaya (who Putin had murdered in 2006):

https://www.amazon.com/Journalism-Worth-Dying-Final-Dispatches/dp/1935554409/

As I go through these books, I hope to have time to answer this particular type of argument.

But in short, I do think it's important that we never take seriously the rhetoric given by manipulative aggressors. They invent reasons. If Ukraine had committed to neutrality forever, then Putin would have simply invented some other reason to invade.

That is a good question. Just to state the obvious, this depends on the system. The USA can only have 2 parties, so they never split, whereas Israel can have 120 parties, so they split constantly, and Israel has a very large number of parties, relative to the size of the country and the size of the parliament. Those are the 2 extremes, the USA and Israel.

Most countries use a proportional system with some cut off. In Finland, the cutoff is 3%, in Germany the cutoff is 5%. The higher the cutoff, the fewer the parties, and the less splits. No one wants to join a splinter party that is too small to get into parliament. (Israel has no cutoff, which is why it has so many splinter parties.)

Is there good reading on this issue? That's a good question. I've mostly read about the USA system, which won't be useful to you.

Here is a book that does not directly address your question, but which does bring up the counter-factual: Could the CDU have split over the issue of gender?

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/052176582X/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_search_asin_title?ie=UTF8&psc=1

This might be one way into the subject.

Some of the best critiques have been novels. For instance, Doris Lessing, and her novel "The Golden Notebook." Or Andre Malraux, Man's Fate. Also, this movie:

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B003B3O5IG/ref=ppx\_yo\_dt\_b\_search\_asin\_image?ie=UTF8&psc=1

I think you have to start with something personal. Something you care about. Let that be your path into politics. If you love food, let food guide you education into politics. If you love guns, let guns be your guide you into politics. If you have any health problems, then let your health problems guide you as you learn about politics. Each of those is a huge subject unto itself, and it will take a few months to learn about the intersection of your interests and the wider political world.

I admit, your problem is a foreign one to me. I grew up in an extremely political family where every dinner was a debate, so I had a deep education by the time I was 9.

But I have had friends who got into politics during the 30s, and most of them do by learning about about the intersection of politics and their other interests, as I suggested above.

I can certainly recommend some books. If you love food, and want to learn about politics from a food lens, I might suggest an old classic like Diet For A Small Planet.

If you have any health problems, and you want to learn about politics through the lens of health problems, I'd suggest this book:

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1635575915/ref=ox_sc_saved_image_3?smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER&psc=1

But however you get into politics, I think you need to find an issue that interests you, before you can get into the electoral politics. I don't think you can figure out how to feel about Democrats and Republicans (if you are in the USA) until you've learned something about an issue that you care about.

Singapore offers a point of contrast, especially along the axis of populism. The USA system is very populist, Singapore is anti-populist. See this book:

https://www.amazon.com/China-Model-Political-Meritocracy-Democracy/dp/0691173044/ref=sr_1_2?crid=3DY7F97ALR2UB&keywords=the+china+model&qid=1645708462&sprefix=the+china+model%2Caps%2C72&sr=8-2

Its focus is on an idealized China model, but the chapter on Singapore will interest you.

Sadly, when Putin dies, Russia will still be facing the rescue curse of oil.

The end of Franco is covered very well in:

Transitions from Authoritarian Rule, Vol. 1: Southern Europe

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0801831903/

But the book makes clear, there was a lot of elite support for allowing some kind of democratic government, as Spain needed to find a way forward and the elites themselves weren't sure how to proceed.

But any elites in Russia will be confident how to proceed: just rely on oil revenue.

Of course, there is the chance that oil prices will crash very low, causing an economic crisis in Russia, which might cause the public to overthrow Putin. The crash in oil prices was a contributing factor to the end of the USSR in 1991. But if the public overthrows Putin, would the elites support such a popular movement? It would depend on whether the elites thought the crash in oil prices was temporary or permanent.

Well, there's diversionary war theory, which suggests [in one interpretation] that governments may go to war if they're facing civilian unrest at home--sort of as a distraction. I actually wrote a seminar paper about this topic, but more recently there's Oakes's <em>Diversionary War: Domestic Unrest and International Conflict</em> that looks at the Falklands/Malvinas conflict of 1982, among other cases. Also, there's a ton of relevant literature from Google Scholar here-- I would especially look at Tir and Levy.

I'm interested in the same subject, so I'd be grateful if you share what you find.

For my part, I just read the opposite, that is, the perversion of taxes and the perversion of state formation. Sarah Chayes looks at corruption in Afghanistan, Nigeria, Egypt, Tunisia and Uzbekistan, to show how outside money and corruption completely undermines the very concept of a state in these countries. This is a great book:

https://www.amazon.com/Thieves-State-Corruption-Threatens-Security/dp/0393352285/

Oof me too. Where to start?

I think a website is probably the first most important thing. List your policy priorities, maybe a few promotional videos, and of course, a donation button. You can do lots yourself with a few $100 and Google Ads, but for the most part, much of your campaign should involve door to door introductions. Know what you care about and know what your community cares about. Don't pander, but be willing to adapt the message for different people.

Your demographic is important too. You don't need everyone's vote, just more than the next guy. How you campaign depends a lot on your target audience. Too broad and you're likely to come off slightly out of touch to everyone who hears about you. Too targeted and there simply won't be enough votes. So decide your brand. People really seem to be upset with do-nothing-corporate-democrats at the moment, so maybe try to leverage that as a more pro-worker-activist candidate.

Besides your political message, assuming it's engaging enough, art and advertisements are important. You want to stand out, but not alienate yourself. maybe skip the generic red-white-and-blue for more exciting an untraditional colors. if you're not a good graphic designer, then hire someone. Most artists who agree with your platform would be happy to get paid. Check out Canva.com. You can make pretty compelling posters as an amateur.

My apologies: the argument (as I know it) was made by Gordon Tullock. Here is an ssrn paper that considers Tullock's arguments in light of recent political scholarship https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2462919

Also: Here is the study I mentioned on money lobbying and lobbyists building coalitions: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Money-%2C-Priorities-%2C-and-Stalemate-%3A-How-Lobbying-Baumgartner-Berry/b3c04a17c86e2d0ad67f7b672714ab2b6788a416

I did an R course on coursera, computing for data analysis, which was very helpful. It's a 4 week course including video lectures and assignments for each week. The fact that there's a forum with active TAs and fellow students was also very helpful. Although you'll have to wait for the next session, I think all lectures and assignments are freely available whenever, so definitely give it a try. https://www.coursera.org/course/compdata

I actually reserve judgement on the current Grexit/EU situation as I'm not an economist and so cannot speak to the economic merits of the arguments of both sides; and I'm not interested enough in the political and social side of it to form an informed opinion. Sorry to disappoint you there.

Python is indeed quite intuitive. It hides a lot of details behind the scenes so that beginners do not get bogged down too easily. On the other hand, this does not mean that Python isn't powerful, because it certainly is. I'm currently expanding my Python knowledge to include data analysis techniques (which requires a different range of libraries than, say, a web scraping program), and so far I'm quite fond of it.

Be sure to head over to /r/learnpython and/or /r/learnprogramming if you get stuck somewhere. Outside of reddit, there is also StackOverflow. And don't be shy to use Google extensively - just make sure not to copy-paste solutions you find online, and instead try to understand why they solve your given problem.

This is something that Lee Drutman explicitly discusses in his book <u>Breaking the Two-Party Doom Loop</u>, and changing how Representatives are elected would not require constitutional change, but it would require a change in federal law (and then changes in state law).

How PR would work in practice: experts usually recommend open-list PR, which for a voter would be pretty similar to what we do now. You have one vote, and you vote for whatever candidate you think is best. One stark difference on the ballot would be that there are many more candidates to choose from, not just two or three. For a 5-seat district in a state with say 4 parties competing, you might have 20-30 candidates to choose from. Otherwise, the complicated stuff is behind the scenes (but in a transparent way if you know the votes for each candidate) in how seats are allocated to each party based on the vote totals they received.

One thing I'd mention is that there is a lot of weird advice out there in terms of how to reform the US electoral system, by people who don't seem to be very familiar with other democracies and how various systems have or have not worked out. This includes algorithmic district drawing to "solve" gerrymandering, approval voting, jungle primaries, top five primaries, non-partisan elections etc.

If you look at what experts on electoral system and comparative democracy recommend, it's multi-seat districts with 3-5 seats per district, and open-list PR (or maybe ranked choice voting). That should make it possible to have something like 3-5 seat-winning, viable parties, instead of the current 2. Here is a plea to this effect by one of the leading experts on this electoral and party systems, Matt Shugart.

I think I found it. It says the year was 1996, but otherwise the journal volume and number match even. I made a PDF of it from LexisNexis. How would you like me to send it?

EDIT: actually, I will have to ditch the computer for a bit. So, I just uploaded it to MediaFire. Here's the link

I actually did a (really shitty now that I'm looking back at it) paper about the SCOTUS case Employment Division of Oregon v. Smith and the rights of Native Americans to use peyote for religious purposes. I did the paper during my sophomore year so it's not my best work, but you might be able to find something useful in the bibliography at least.

Here's the link.

I like to see it like this: The more of a data wizard one is nowadays the better, no matter the field. Not only because things will eventually get banally easy for you (and that's a great skill,) but also that having a strong background on data means you're quicker than most even to simply read reports, it's a great asset imho, both in a personal and in a career skill fashion. Don't think twice, specially if you're a freshman!

Also, one of my fav freshman tips nowadays is: use Obsidian.md. I'm jealous of the folks that can start using this to build their knowledge up as they grow on their fields, I had a gigantic backlog to add to it but it was worth it. This tool is free and very data friendly, and it's only getting better with time. Good luck!!

I recommend "Bleeding Kansas: Contested Liberty in the Civil War Era" by Nichole Etcheson.

The book is not written from a political science perspective but rather a historical one. Dr. Etcheson is a Professor of History at Ball State University.

Amazon Smile link

Harvard Professor Emeritus Shoshana Zuboff’s: The Age of Surveillance Capitalism - The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power

I'd highly recommend taking a look at Debs and Monteiro's book Nuclear Politics: The Strategic Causes of Proliferation, which explains their theory in detail and applies the theory on a country-by-country basis.

For a shorter treatment of the subject, they also published an article in IS.

Their main argument:

>Our theory highlights five hitherto underappreciated patterns of nuclear proliferation. First, states that do not face a high-level security threat have not acquired the bomb. Second, weak states that did not benefit from the protection of a powerful ally committed to retaliating against an eventual preventive strike—such as contemporary Iran—have not acquired the bomb. Third, states whose security goals are subsumed by their powerful allies’ own aims have not acquired the bomb. Among states that possess a powerful ally, only those whose security goals are not entirely covered by this ally have acquired nuclear weapons. Fourth, U.S. threats of abandonment are effective in curtailing proliferation only by protégés that are relatively weak vis-à-vis their adversaries. Such was the case of Taiwan and West Germany, both of which Washington coerced into maintaining their nonnuclear status. Fifth, the spread of nuclear weapons decelerated with the end of the Cold War in 1989. Despite grave concerns that more states would seek a nuclear deterrent to counter U.S. power preponderance, generating “nuclear cascades” and proliferation “tipping points,” only two states—Pakistan and North Korea—have acquired nuclear weapons since the demise of the Soviet Union.

Authoritarianism is a very touchy subject. Most people who discuss authoritarian never even mention Totalitarianism.

>[How did America end up with a leader who acts so crudely and despotically, and counter to our democratic principles? Why do his followers stick with him, even when he acts against their own interests?

To fully understand, John Dean, a man with a history of standing up to autocratic presidents, joined with Bob Altemeyer, a professor of psychology with a unique area of expertise: Authoritarianism.

Relying on social science findings and psychological diagnostic tools (such as the "Power Mad Scale" and the "Con Man Scale"), as well as research and analysis from the Monmouth University Polling Institute (one of America's most respected public opinion research foundations), the authors provide us with an eye-opening understanding of the Trump phenomenon — and how we may be able to stop it.](https://www.amazon.com/Authoritarian-Nightmare-Trump-His-Followers/dp/1612199054)

I’ m just going to leave this 1950 book here by Theodore Adorno called the Authoritarian Personality. He was part of the Frankfurt School and wondered how much of a fascist tendency exists in the US. To his surprise, quite a lot.

I agree with this, but for other reasons. Coup scholars say the consensus definition of a coup, while it's not clearly and precisely defined, has some conditions that most coups exhibit. One of them is that the Military or the Policy is actively and purposedly involved in the attempt to seize political power, overthrowing whoever is in charge of the Executive power.

The siege on the Capitol is an insurrection fueled by the President. In some ways very similar to an "autogolpe," but it is not the same in terms of how it operates, its effects, and how to countermeasure it.

I would suggest taking a look at this book: https://www.amazon.com/-/es/Naunihal-Singh/dp/1421422565. Naunihal Singh is a Harvard Ph.D. in Political Science. I discovered him because of all this. He is on Twitter also if you want to follow him.

I would say that this is something that is quite difficult to measure..this is a great book which I read, that might be of interest: https://www.amazon.com/Cyberwar-Russian-Hackers-Trolls-President/dp/0190915811

Basically in order to know that disinformation affected voting behaviour you need to isolate that it was really the disinformation. That’s quite difficult to do. However, the book might give you some ideas; she looks at polling pre and post certain events (eg the hacking of Hilary Clinton’s email), how polls changed in certain areas and among certain demographics where it is known that people were targeted. But the author is still open to the fact that you cannot know for sure the effect of disinformation.

If you liked this, you should read Economic Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy, by the same authors. That was their original hit book in poli sci. It's a lot mathier, but the theory is very interesting. Find here:

https://www.amazon.com/Economic-Origins-Dictatorship-Democracy-Acemoglu/dp/0521671426

There are a number of variables at play, but most important might be access to ballots, "first past the post" voting, and the internal structure and practices in the House and Senate. A good general read that sums up the first two is here. For a super accessible read on the third, you might enjoy this.

Literally page 1 of Coercion, Capital and European States, A.D. 990 - 1992:

>"Let us define states as coercion-wielding organizations that are distinct from households and kinship groups and exercise clear priority in some respects over all other organizations within substantial territories."

He goes on to further explicate the definition over the course of the rest of that paragraph and makes minor caveats.

Go to the amazon page for the text and use 'look inside' to see the first couple pages of the first chapter where he defines the state and cities.

&#x200B;

Andrew Haywood has a thin book just explaining the basic concepts of political science. I always found it helpful, he divides topic into “key concepts” and then explains the significance of the theories and concepts. The book is called Key Concepts in Politics and International Relations and it’s $28 on Amazon.

I'm sorry. I have tried to look for you but it seems difficult. I've found a store in Portuguese, but for now it seems sold out. You can send them an email to ask if they will have it again. It seems that you have the electronic version on Amazon.

https://www.wook.pt/livro/do-contrato-social-jean-jacques-rousseau/15766363

https://www.amazon.com/-/es/Jean-Jacques-Rousseau-ebook/dp/B005F79MW0

There must be specialized libraries in Portugal, or a public library that has a copy.

I believe Kurland and Lerner released a a multi volume set of it in hardcover and digital, but I personally haven’t bought it so I’d make sure you do your own research first to ensure it’s the right thing and the same quality.

Read the communist manifesto obviously, Read American Government 101 very elementary book but very useful if you're new to the subject. You also should really read The Republic and also read Utilitarianism by John Stuart Mill.

>You [couldn't be more wrong. Look at this fascist inspired group.](
>
>https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tradition,\_Family\_and\_Property#:\~:text=Tradition%2C%20Family%2C%20and%20Property%20(,organizations%20of%20Traditionalist%20Catholic%20inspiration.&amp;text=He%20remained%20president%20of%20the,until%20his%20deat...

Nothing in the page says it is a fascist group.

> Julius Evola was a traditionalist and fascist.

He's a complicated figured that both criticized fascism and flirted with it. You are presenting a very simplistic take.

> Your whole argument is based on an intentional misunderstanding of Umberto Eco. The fascists invented imaginary traditions even.

Or maybe Eco's arguments are not that convincing when you actually look at it critically. Even his presupposition, that what he describes is "eternal fascism", pretending that fascism is an eternal movement rather than a movement that emerged specifically from the aftermath of WWI, is highly dubious. I don't think his take is very cognizant or convincing, but I have to recognize that it is politically convenient for some who want to tar political opponents as fascists.

Every single regime can "invent" new traditions. Any behavioral custom which is reproduced over a period of time can become a tradition, no matter if that custom comes from the right, the left or whatever.

You [couldn't be more wrong. Look at this fascist inspired group.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tradition,_Family_and_Property#:~:text=Tradition%2C%20Family%2C%20and%20Property%20(,organizations%20of%20Traditionalist%20Catholic%20inspiration.&amp;text=He%20remained%20president%20of%20the,until%20his%20death%20...

Julius Evola was a traditionalist and fascist.

Your whole argument is based on an intentional misunderstanding of Umberto Eco. The fascists invented imaginary traditions even.

There are 14 features to ur fascism. Just because one is missing in some cases doesn't negate the existence of fascism.

>With World War II, the Fall of France, and the German period of occupation, Deloncle created a movement backing Vichy France and Philippe Pétain, the Mouvement Social Révolutionnaire (MSR, Social Revolutionary Movement). MSR, a more radical form of the Cagoule, strongly supported Pétain's traditionalism, as well as the political experiment engineered in Southern France. Afterwards, he approached the National Popular Rally (RNP) of Marcel Déat, but conflicts with the latter got him expelled in May 1942, when he was succeeded as leader by Jean Fontenoy.[1]

The Two Party Doom Loop is a must-read. It's much bigger than ranked choice itself, but in a good way. It's about the fundamental problems with politics today and how ranked choice, among other reforms, is necessary to fix the state of affairs.

I recommend Daniele Caramani's "Comparative Politics" (link is for 4th edition) (for amazon and 5th edition published last month go here).

Individualist Manifesto isn’t a full view but it goes deep into individualist philosophy and capitalism. It’s like an individualist extreme. It’s pretty new, and free, I think. It’s on amazon

https://www.amazon.com/Individualist-Manifesto-Elijah-M-ebook/dp/B085XHKHGV/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?dchild=1&amp;keywords=individualist+manifesto&amp;qid=1585586646&amp;s=digital-text&amp;sr=1-1

There are some real introduction to poli sci textbooks out there, but they are really pretty dry. For instance, I used something like this book when I took a intro to political science course, but it doesn't exactly inspire the level of interest more specific books might. It's useful though because it covers domestic politics, international politics, and political theory and philosophy.

If you just want to look into the US, then Logic of American Politics is a pretty good, albeit dense, place to start. If you want a more global perspective, I'd try out something more like this. I don't really know a good intro to IR or Theory book, but if you're interested in war and how countries interact then look into international relations and if you want to think more about what is "good", "just", or how things should work you might want to look at political theory.

I've found the really helpful app "EasyThesis" in the play store last week. Look here for lot of good tips to write a well-organised and convincing thesis and also how to find reliable sources:

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.perpetuum.easythesis

Check out Political Analysis Using R, it has some great walkthroughs using political science specific vignettes.

Political Analysis Using R (Use R!) https://www.amazon.com/dp/3319234455/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_hPhCDb721G0YQ

Have you read Paxton? I'm asking because I'm convicend by the others comments that it would be the best option for me (since I don't have too much time for it).

Thank you very much for your attention!

Levitsky and Ziblatt's <em>How Democracies Die</em> (2018) is a great place to start. They're two of the leading scholars in the field when it comes to democratic breakdown. Mark Chou's Democracy Against Itself (2014) is also a great text on endogenous democratic collapse.

Implementation. literally. You'll run into politics for days when talking about implementation.

Here's a great book on the subject: https://www.amazon.com/Implementation-Expectations-Washington-Programs-Foundation/dp/0520053311

There is not going to be much research on the alt-right because of how new they are to the scene. Pull back and look at the forest instead of the trees.

&nbsp;

The alt-right is an extreme faction of a particular ideological movement. Look for research on factions in party politics and interest group research. In particular, I would suggest Heaney's book on the Anti-War Movement and its relationship to the Democratic Party in the early 2000's. It should give a good foundation for theory-building about the alt-right.

I've heard this book is supposed to be solid, in terms of Chinese foreign relations. Haven't read it myself though.

Robert Heinemans introduction to political science is brief and helpful. A little outdated, but It's good stuff.

Andrew Heywood's "Politics" and "Ideologies" are great introductions.

I'm not sure what level of intro you're wanting, but this might be be good for comparative politics (some of the chapters are a bit dense though): https://www.amazon.com/Comparative-Politics-Rationality-Structure-Cambridge/dp/0521712343. Also this is often assigned or required those going into CP and is an easier read (it's just interviews of how some of the big names in CP feel about their research, the discipline, etc): https://www.amazon.com/Passion-Craft-Method-Comparative-Politics/dp/0801884640. You can probably find bits of these books around publicly so you don't have to pay for the whole texts if you just want to check them out first. Good luck!

I have to go with many of the classics. *The Law by Frederick Bastiat *The Prince by Machiavelli *Art of War by Sun Tzu *Common Sense by Thomas Paine *The Federalist Papers (American founding)

after you read Bastiat.... I would recommend you read "Rules for Radicals" by Saul Alinsky as it is in SHARP contrast and will open your eyes on a lot of political theory.

Some Economic books *Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith *Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlett *anything by Hayek AND Keynes... (one most understand both views to see the flaws in one) *many works by Thomas Sowell

some fictional works *Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand (Im not a libertarian but DAMN this book is deep)

Hi! I'm currently taking two political theory courses. One is focused on American Political Thought and the other is general Western Political Thought. Here are most of the texts we cover:

AMERICAN POLITICAL THOUGHT:

Ben Franklin - "The Way to Wealth" & "The Art of Virtue"

Jay, Madison, Hamilton - The Federalist Papers

Anti-Federalists - "Essays of Brutus"

George Washington - "Washington's Farewell Address"

John C. Calhoun - "A Disquisition on Government"

Orestes Brownson - "Constitutional Guarantees" & "The Democratic Principle"

Tocqueville - Democracy in America

Lincoln - "Gettysburg Address"

Frederick Douglass - "What to the Slave is the Fourth of July?"

Martin Luther King - "Letter from Birmingham Jail" & "I have a Dream"

Russell Kirk - "What Did Americans Inherit from the Ancients?"

WESTERN POLITICAL THOUGHT:

Plato - Republic

Aristotle - Nicomachean Ethics

Cicero - On Duties

St. Augustine - The City of God

Thomas Aquinas - Confessions

Machiavelli - The Prince

Thomas Hobbes - Leviathan

John Locke - Two Treatises on Government

Jean-Jacques Rousseau - Discourse on Inequality & The Social Contract

Karl Marx - The Communist Manifesto

John Stuart Mill - On Liberty

This probably isn't the response you were wanting, but rather than reinventing the wheel I would recommend either reading the Wikipedia pages if you want the short answer to this question or Bruce Cumming's book, "Korea's Place in the Sun" for the long answer to Korea's contemporary history.

http://www.amazon.com/Koreas-Place-Sun-History-Updated/dp/0393327027

Not the best sources, but for a start you might check out Life in the Third Reich, which gives a good general overview I think of what it was like (i.e. the whole competing fiefdoms of Hitler's core supporters). From what I remember overall, which maybe might help narrow your search down, the Germany Army, which all in all was old-school conservative, thought at some point that they could use Hitler for their own interests, but were pretty much sidelined over time politically. The SS by the end of WW2 was basically a parallel Army, and I think quite despised by the regular Army.

I'm currently reading John Toland's Rising Sun. The guy interviewed a bunch of high-level Japanese officials after the war and it seems that this is the definitive history of WW2 from the Japanese side. He spends quite some time discussing the personalities and politics leading up to the war, which is the part that might be interesting for you. While in Germany, and outsider and civilian (Hitler) came into power and established near-total control over the military, there was basically no civilian control of the military in Japan after the 1930's, and the way Toland describes it, there wasn't really always effective control by the military leadership over subordinate levels. The big thing in Japanese politics leading up to WW2 was not so much civilian control of the military, but conflict between the Army and Navy, as far as I can tell.

Why are you specifically interested in "fascist" countries?

Not sure that "fascist" is a good label, especially for grouping Germany and Japan together.

Less on the political situation, but a good idea of their economic development is laid out in Naughton's "The Chinese Economy" (http://www.amazon.com/The-Chinese-Economy-Transitions-Growth/dp/0262640643).

If you're interested in elections or the art of political campaigning, highly recommend Campaign Craft, very relevant to recent elections and the coming presidential primaries.