Life and death in the forest: Landscape agency during the Holocaust

To escape certain death during the Nazi regime, approximately eighty thousand terrorized and persecuted Eastern European Jews sought refuge in the forests surrounding their communities. Most often, their forest deaths were the result of Nazi-sponsored activities such as ghetto deportations and hunts for Jewish escapees. However, anti-Semitic partisans, partisan combat, hostile peasants, and environmental elements were also factors contributing to an estimated ninety percent fatality rate. This dissertation explored the role and meaning of forests to these Jewish fugitives. It investigated the bodily and social practices they developed to enhance their odds of survival in the forest landscape. I develop the concept of landscape agency as a response to my research question: What was it like to live and survive (or die) in the forest during the Holocaust? Moreover, it is an approach to theorizing about the humanity of space. Landscape agency builds upon a phenomenological approach to space and place that links landscape and action through bodily practices. This dissertation analyzed the fugitives' actions as functions of various forms of capital, namely economic, cultural and social. The sample included thirteen individuals who were themselves forest fugitives during the Holocaust. Face-face qualitative interviews were conducted from 2004 to 2006. Primary data from these interviews was used extensively to demonstrate the practices utilized in the fugitives' experiences with life and death in the forest. This study concluded that the odds of survival for forest fugitives were enhanced by use of landscape agency.

Politics at the water's edge: The presidency, Congress, and the North Korea policy of the United States

For all their efforts to avoid a nuclear North Korea, the Clinton and Bush administrations failed to achieve this goal, the most important policy objective of the United States in its relations with North Korea for decades, mainly because of inconsistencies in U.S. policy. This dissertation seeks to explain why both administrations ultimately failed to prevent North Korea from going nuclear. It finds the origins of this failure in the implementation of different U.S. policy options toward North Korea during the Clinton and Bush administrations. To explain the lack of policy consistency, the dissertation investigates how the relations between the executive and the legislative branches and, more specifically, different government types—unified government and divided government—have affected U.S. policy toward North Korea. It particularly emphasizes the role of Congress and partisan politics in the making of U.S. policy toward North Korea. This study finds that divided government played a pivotal role. Partisan politics are also central to the explanation: politics did not stop at the water’s edge. A divided U.S. government produced more status quo policies toward North Korea than a unified U.S. government, while a unified government produced more active policies than a divided government. Moreover, a unified government with a Republican President produced more aggressive policies toward North Korea, whereas a unified government with a Democratic President produced more conciliatory policies. This study concludes that the different government types and intensified partisan politics were the main causes of the inconsistencies in the United States’ North Korea policy that led to a nuclear North Korea.

Voting with their feet: Migration, partisanship, and party-safe elections in Florida

Political scientists have long noted that Congressional elections are often uncompetitive, often extremely so. Many scholars argue that the cause lies in the partisan redistricting of Congressional districts, or “gerrymandering”. Other scholars emphasize polarization created by a fragmented news media, or the candidate choices made by a more ideological primary electorate. All these explanations identify the cause of party-safe elections in institutions of various kinds. This dissertation, by contrast, presents a structural explanation of uncompetitive elections. My theory is that population composition and patterns of migration are significant causes and predictors of election results in Florida. I test this theory empirically by comparing the predictions from four hypotheses against aggregate data, using the county as the unit of analysis. The first hypothesis is that Florida can be divided into clearly distinguishable, persistent partisan sections. This hypothesis is confirmed. The second hypothesis is that Florida voters have become increasingly partisan over time. This hypothesis is confirmed. The third hypothesis is that the degree of migration into a county predicts how that county will vote. This hypothesis is partially confirmed, for the migration effect appears to have waned over time. The last hypothesis is that the degree of religiosity of a county population is a predictor of how that county will vote. This hypothesis is also supported by the results of statistical analysis. By identifying the structural causes of party-safe elections, this dissertation not only broadens our understanding of elections in Florida, but also sheds light on the current polarization in American politics.