Winner of the 2019 Don T. Nakanishi Award for Distinguished Scholarship and Service from the Western Political Science Association Committee on the Status of Asian Pacific Americans

“Immigrants are not necessarily liberals, and religion is a large factor in predicting immigrant conservatism. These points are often overlooked by scholars and policymakers alike, and Janelle Wong’s path-breaking work shines much needed light on the ways in which religion—particularly evangelical Christianity—shapes immigrants’ politics, with considerable implications for the future of American party coalitions.”

—Michael Jones-Correa, professor of political science, University of Pennsylvania

“This is the perfect time for this important book. With evangelicals again in the bright political spotlight over their role in electing Donald Trump, it is essential to understand Janelle Wong’s exploration of evangelical religion, interests, and identities. Evangelical is clearly not a synonym for white Republican. But the steady diversification of evangelicalism will not necessarily entail a moderation of white evangelical politics either. There is fascinating work to be done on how people wrestle with competing racial and religious identities and Wong’s Immigrants, Evangelicals, and Politics in an Era of Demographic Change paves the way.”

—Paul A. Djupe, associate professor of political science, Denison University

As immigration from Asia and Latin America reshapes the demographic composition of the U.S., some analysts have anticipated the decline of conservative white evangelicals’ influence in politics. Yet, Donald Trump captured a larger share of the white evangelical vote in the 2016 election than any candidate in the previous four presidential elections. Why has the political clout of white evangelicals persisted at a time of increased racial and ethnic diversity? In Immigrants, Evangelicals, and Politics in an Era of Demographic Change, political scientist Janelle Wong examines a new generation of Asian American and Latino evangelicals and offers an account of why demographic change has not contributed to a political realignment.

Asian Americans and Latinos currently constitute more than one in every seven evangelicals, and their churches are among the largest, fastest growing organizations in their communities. While evangelical identity is associated with conservative politics, Wong draws from national surveys and interviews to show that non-white evangelicals express political attitudes that are significantly less conservative than those of their white counterparts. Black, Asian American, and Latino evangelicals are much more likely to support policies such as expanded immigration rights, increased taxation of the wealthy, and government interventions to slow climate change. As Wong argues, non-white evangelicals’ experiences as members of racial or ethnic minority groups often lead them to adopt more progressive political views compared to their white counterparts.

However, despite their growth in numbers, non-white evangelicals—particularly Asian Americans and Latinos—are concentrated outside of swing states, have lower levels of political participation than white evangelicals, and are less likely to be targeted by political campaigns. As a result, white evangelicals dominate the evangelical policy agenda and are overrepresented at the polls. Also, many white evangelicals have adopted even more conservative political views in response to rapid demographic change, perceiving, for example, that discrimination against Christians now rivals discrimination against racial and ethnic minorities.

Wong demonstrates that immigrant evangelicals are neither “natural” Republicans nor “natural” Democrats. By examining the changing demographics of the evangelical movement, Immigrants, Evangelicals, and Politics in an Era of Demographic Change sheds light on an understudied constituency that has yet to find its political home.

JANELLE S. WONG is professor of American Studies at the University of Maryland.

Winner of the 2019 Alexander George Book Award from the International Society of Political Psychology (ISPP)

"Why do so many Americans both depend on public programs and express distrust and opposition to the federal government that provides them? Suzanne Mettler, one of the most original political scientists working today, offers crucial answers to this puzzle. Her important new book, The Government-Citizen Disconnect, will engage citizens and scholars alike at a juncture of crisis, controversy, and revitalization for American democracy."

—Theda Skocpol, director, Scholars Strategy Network, and Victor S. Thomas Professor of Government and Sociology, Harvard University

"Americans hate government. They also depend on it more and more. In this compelling and deeply researched book, Suzanne Mettler shows that this paradox is at the heart of our current political crisis. Anyone who cares about the future of the country should read The Government-Citizen Disconnect."

—Jacob S. Hacker, Stanley B. Resor Professor of Political Science, Yale University

Americans’ relationship to the federal government is paradoxical. Polls show that public opinion regarding the government has plummeted to all-time lows, with only one in five saying they trust the government or believe that it operates in their interest. Yet, at the same time, more Americans than ever benefit from some form of government social provision. Political scientist Suzanne Mettler calls this growing gulf between people’s perceptions of government and the actual role it plays in their lives the "government-citizen disconnect." In The Government-Citizen Disconnect, she explores the rise of this phenomenon and its implications for policymaking and politics.

Drawing from original survey data which probed Americans’ experiences of 21 federal social policies -- such as food stamps, Social Security, Medicaid, and the home mortgage interest deduction -- Mettler shows that 96 percent of adults have received benefits from at least one of them, and that the average person has utilized five. Overall usage rates transcend social, economic, and political divisions, and most Americans report positive experiences of their policy experiences. However, the fact that they have benefited from these policies bears little positive effect on people’s attitudes towards government. Mettler finds that shared identities and group affiliations are more powerful and consistent influences. In particular, those who oppose welfare tend to extrapolate their unfavorable views of it to government in general. Deep antipathy toward the government has emerged as a conservative movement waged a war on social welfare policies for over forty years, even as economic inequality and benefit use increased.

Mettler finds that patterns of political participation exacerbate the government-citizen disconnect, as those holding positive views of federal programs and supporting expanded benefits have lower rates of involvement than those holding more hostile views of the government. As a result, the loudest political voice belongs to those who have benefited from policies but who give government little credit for their economic well-being, seeing their success more as a matter of their own deservingness. This contributes to the election of politicians who advocate cutting federal social programs. According to Mettler, the government-citizen disconnect frays the bonds of representative government and democracy.

The Government-Citizen Disconnect illuminates a paradox that increasingly shapes American politics. Mettler's examination of hostility toward government at a time when most Americans will at some point rely on the social benefits it provides helps us better understand the roots of today's fractious political climate.

SUZANNE METTLER is the Clinton Rossiter Chair of American Institutions at Cornell University.

A review of the development of the community center as a distinct institution and government agency, ten years after such a proposal was made to reformers the 1911 First National Conference on Civic and Social Center Development. The article first appeared in 1921 in the New York Evening Post and reprinted in the September-October 1921 number of the Community Center.

CLARENCE ARTHUR PERRY, Department of Child Hygiene, Russell Sage Foundation

An address delivered before the Association at the National Recreation Congress in 1908 that points out how fundamental recreation, as well as the public spaces that provide it, can be.

CHARLES EVANS HUGHES was Governor of New York and Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.

This paper, from the Playground Extension Committee of the Russell Sage Foundation, explores the various questions and decisions that come into play for a government body in regards to the construction of a new public recreation space.

GEORGE HIBBARD was mayor of Boston, Massachusetts.

A volume of the Pittsburgh Survey, this 1915 report explains how a system involving land classes and ward rates in Pittsburgh added up to an unfair system that placed the heaviest tax burden on the lower class. It offers recommendations for reform.

SHELBY M. HARRISON was director of the Department of Surveys and Exhibits of the Russell Sage Foundation.