spb/wp30_uqo

1{2  "document_id": "lb_hotpotqa_a16ac581bde4459861c8681858b07f82363f66142beed4c2",3  "family": "public_hotpotqa",4  "split": "test",5  "text": "Passage 1:\nFifty-state strategy\nIn the context of American politics, a fifty-state strategy is a political strategy which aims for progress in all states of the United States of America, rather than conceding certain states as \"unwinnable\". In a presidential campaign, it is usually implemented as an appeal to a broad base of the American public in an attempt to win, even if marginally, every state, since even a marginal victory is effectively a total victory for electoral purposes. It can also refer to an overall long-term strategy for a political movement such as a political party.\nThis strategy is very ambitious and, when used for a specific election, is typically abandoned as the election day draws nearer. In the vast majority of cases, winning a state's popular vote for president or senator — even by a small margin — means the state's entire representation in the election goes to the victor without being divided. A fifty-state strategy requires a campaign to spend valuable resources in a rival's strongest states, when those resources could instead be concentrated in swing states that will become a total win or a total loss based on only a small difference in popular votes.\n\nAttempts\nSuccessful\nA president has won every state three times. In 1788 and 1792, George Washington won all the electoral votes running effectively unopposed, and in 1820, James Monroe, running unopposed, carried all twenty-three states in the union at that time (although one electoral vote was cast for John Quincy Adams and two electors died prior to casting votes).\nA complete fifty-state victory has not been accomplished since the fiftieth state was admitted into the union, though there have been several landslide victories:\n\nIn 1936, Franklin D. Roosevelt carried 46 of 48 states, losing only Maine and Vermont.\nIn 1972, with Richard Nixon losing only Massachusetts.\nIn 1984, with Ronald Reagan losing only his rival's home state of Minnesota, yet only doing so by about 3,000 votes.Both Nixon and Reagan also lost the District of Columbia, which has had presidential electors since the Twenty-Third Amendment in 1961.\n\nUnsuccessful\nIn 1960, the first presidential election after the admission of Alaska and Hawaii, Richard Nixon pledged to visit all 50 states following his nomination at the Republican National Convention. Nixon was defeated in the general election by Democrat John F. Kennedy, in one of the closest presidential campaigns in American history. Many observers and commentators in succeeding years, such as Larry Sabato, have criticized Nixon's fifty-state pledge as a factor in his loss, suggesting that it forced him to place less emphasis on close states. Eight years later, in 1968, Nixon ran for president again and won a three-way race against Democrat Hubert Humphrey and independent candidate George Wallace. His achievement of visiting every state in his previous campaign made Nixon the first president ever to accomplish this task, though not during a winning campaign.\n\nMixed results\nHoward Dean pursued an explicit \"fifty-state strategy\" as chairman of the Democratic National Committee, putting resources into building a Democratic Party presence even where Democrats had been thought unlikely to win federal positions, in hopes that getting Democrats elected to local and state positions, and increasing awareness of Democrats in previously conceded areas, would result in growing successes in future elections. Democrats who supported the strategy have said that abandoning \"red states\" as lost causes only allowed the Republican Party to grow even stronger in areas where it was unchallenged, resulting in lopsided losses for Democrats in even more races.During the 2008 United States presidential election, Barack Obama attempted a form of the fifty-state strategy to reach into deep red states to try to flip them. This was largely based on Obama's appeal during the primaries in very Republican states, like those in the Deep South and the Great Plains. In September, Obama scaled back his fifty-state strategy, abandoning Alaska and North Dakota and reducing staff in Georgia and Montana. John McCain's choice of Sarah Palin as his running mate made winning Alaska very unlikely for Obama, and she also had strong support in North Dakota. Obama was ultimately able to win Virginia and Indiana, two states that had not voted Democratic since 1964, and North Carolina, last won by a Democrat in 1976. Virginia has since become a reliably Democratic state. Additionally, the margins of victory in North Dakota, Georgia, and Montana were considerably closer than they had been in 2004.\n\nSee also\nElectoral College (United States)\nRed states and blue states\nPassage 2:\nTerritory of Hawaii\nThe Territory of Hawaii or Hawaii Territory (Hawaiian: Panalāʻau o Hawaiʻi) was an organized incorporated territory of the United States that existed from April 30, 1900, until August 21, 1959, when most of its territory, excluding Palmyra Island, was admitted to the United States as the 50th U.S. state, the State of Hawaii. The Hawaii Admission Act specified that the State of Hawaii would not include Palmyra Island, the Midway Islands, Kingman Reef, and Johnston Atoll, which includes Johnston (or Kalama) Island and Sand Island.On July 4, 1898, the United States Congress passed the Newlands Resolution authorizing the U.S. annexation of the Republic of Hawaii, and five weeks later, on August 12, Hawaii became a U.S. territory. In April 1900 Congress approved the Hawaiian Organic Act which organized the territory. United States Public Law 103-150 adopted in 1993, (informally known as the Apology Resolution), acknowledged that \"the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii occurred with the active participation of agents and citizens of the United States\" and also \"that the Native Hawaiian people never directly relinquished to the United States their claims to their inherent sovereignty as a people over their national lands, either through the Kingdom of Hawaii or through a plebiscite or referendum\".Hawaii's territorial history includes a period from 1941 to 1944, during World War II, when the islands were placed under martial law. Civilian government was dissolved and a military governor was appointed.\n\nBackground\nUpon the overthrow of Queen Liliʻuokalani in January 1893, the Committee of Safety established the Provisional Government of Hawaii and set out to effect Hawaii's speedy annexation by the United States. A commission, led by Lorrin A. Thurston, was sent to Washington D.C. to negotiate an annexation treaty with President Benjamin Harrison. A delegation led by Princess Victoria Kaʻiulani also went to Washington to protest the overthrow and to lobby against annexation.\nHarrison and the commission signed a treaty of annexation, which was sent to the U.S. Senate for approval. In March 1893, before the Senate could ratify it, Grover Cleveland took office. The new president was an anti-imperialist and strongly opposed to annexation. He withdrew the treaty from consideration, ordered a congressional investigation into the events surrounding the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy, and, after receiving the committee's first report, recommended the restoration of Liliʻuokalani as queen. This did not go over well from even his own party.  Eventually a bi-partisan vote called for a \"hands off\" policy in regards to internal events in Hawaii. Further investigation by Congress led to the Morgan Report, which established that the actions of U.S. troops stationed in Hawaii during the coup had been completely neutral, and exonerated the U.S. military from any accusations of complicity with the overthrow.\n\nThe provisional government convened a constitutional convention  to establish the Republic of Hawaii. Thurston was urged to become the nation's first president but he was worried his brazen personality would damage the cause of annexation. The more conservative Sanford B. Dole, former Supreme Court Justice and friend of Queen Liliʻuokalani, was elected as the first and only president of the new regime.Hawaii's strategic location to support the Spanish–American War in the Philippines made it especially important to American interests, as argued by naval strategist Alfred Thayer Mahan. This and fears that the Empire of Japan would seize control of the islands provided momentum for the proponents of annexation. On July 4, 1898, the U.S. Congress passed a joint resolution to provide for annexing of Hawaii to the United States. The resolution, commonly known as the Newlands Resolution (named after  Congressman Francis Newlands), was signed into law three days later by President McKinley and came into effect on August 12, 1898. The Newlands Resolution states,\n\nWhereas, the Government of the Republic of Hawaii having, in due form, signified its consent, in the manner provided by its constitution, to cede absolutely and without reserve to the United States of America, all rights of sovereignty of whatsoever kind in and over the Hawaiian Islands and their dependencies, and also to cede and transfer to the United States, the absolute fee and ownership of all public, Government, or Crown lands, public buildings or edifices, ports, harbors, military equipment, and all other public property of every kind and description belonging to the Government of the Hawaiian Islands, together with every right and appurtenance thereunto appertaining: Therefore,Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That said cession is accepted, ratified, and confirmed, and that the said Hawaiian Islands and their dependencies be, and they are hereby, annexed as a part of the territory of the United States and are subject to the sovereign dominion thereof, and that all and singular the property and rights hereinbefore mentioned are vested in the United States of America.\nA formal ceremony marking the transfer of Hawaiian state sovereignty to the United States was held on August 12 on the steps of the ʻIolani Palace in Honolulu where the Hawaiian flag was lowered and the American flag was raised in its place.\n\nThe Resolution also provided for the establishment of a five-member commission to study what new laws were needed regarding the management and disposition of public lands in Hawaii, and to develop a frame of government for the islands. It was composed of: Sanford B. Dole (who, under the terms of the Resolution, retained the powers he previously exercised as President of Hawaii), Walter F. Frear (who likewise remained Judge of the Supreme Court of Hawaii), along with U.S. senators Shelby M. Cullom (R-Illinois) and John T. Morgan (D-Alabama), and representative Robert R. Hitt (R-Illinois). The commission's final report was submitted to Congress for a debate which lasted over a year. Many Southern congressmen and senators raised objections to establishing an elected territorial government in Hawaii, as doing so would open a pathway for the admission of a state with a \"non-white\" majority population at a time when strict \"Jim Crow laws\" mandating racial segregation in all public facilities were in force throughout the American South.\n\nOrganic Act\nIn early 1900 Congress passed an Act To provide a government for the Territory of Hawaii, which was signed into law by President William McKinley on April 30, 1900. This organic act established the office of governor of Hawaii. Territorial governors were appointed by the president of the United States with the advice and consent of the U.S. Senate. They served for four years, unless removed sooner by the president.\n\nTerritorial governors\nThe organic act also created a bicameral Hawaii Territorial Legislature, consisting of a lower chamber House of Representatives and the upper chamber, the Senate, with its members elected by popular vote.\nA Territorial Supreme Court of several justices/judges led by a Chief Justice, and additional appellate courts, also appointed by the President with the constitutional \"advice and consent\" of the Senate.\nThe Act also provided as with the other several Federal territories for a non-voting Delegate to the United States Congress, seated and with offices and the otherwise usual rights and privileges of a U.S. Representative in the United States House of Representatives\n\nCongressional delegates\nRepresentation in the U.S. House of Representatives was limited to a single, non-voting delegate:\n\nTourism\nHawaii's tourism industry began in 1882 when Matson Navigation Company, founded by William Matson, began sailing vessels between San Francisco and Hawaii carrying goods. His transports encouraged him to purchase passenger steamships that would carry tourists hoping to vacation in Hawaii from the United States mainland.Matson's fleet included the SS Wilhelmina, rivaling the best passenger ships serving traditional Atlantic routes. With the boom in interest of Hawaiian vacations by America's wealthiest families in the late 1920s, Matson added the SS Mariposa, SS Monterey and SS Lurline (one of many Lurlines) to the fleet.\nMatson Navigation Company operated two resort hotels in Honolulu near royal grounds. The first (and for a time the only) hotel on Waikīkī was the Moana Hotel which opened in 1901. As the first hotel in Waikīkī, the Moana Hotel was nicknamed the \"First Lady of Waikīkī.\"  The hotel gained international attention in 1920 when Edward, Prince of Wales and future King Edward VIII of the United Kingdom, stayed as a guest.\nIn 1927, the luxurious Royal Hawaiian Hotel, informally called the \"Pink Palace of the Pacific,\" opened for business. It was the preferred Hawaii residence of President Franklin D. Roosevelt when he visited Hawaii during World War II.\n\nMilitary bases\nWith annexation, the United States saw Hawaii as its most strategic military asset. McKinley and his successor U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt expanded the military presence in Hawaii and established several key bases, some still in use today. By 1906, the entire island of Oahu was being fortified at the coastlines with the construction of a \"Ring of Steel,\" a series of gun batteries mounted on steel coastal walls. One of the few surviving batteries completed in 1911, Battery Randolph, is today the site of the U.S. Army Museum of Hawaii.List of Territorial Installations:\n\nIndustrial boom and the \"Big Five\"\nAs a territory of the United States, sugarcane plantations gained a new infusion of investment. By getting rid of tariffs imposed on sugarcane sent to the continental United States, planters had more money to spend on equipment, land and labor. Increased capital resulted in increased production. Five kingdom-era corporations benefited from annexation, becoming multimillion-dollar conglomerations: Castle & Cooke, Alexander & Baldwin, C. Brewer & Co., American Factors (later Amfac), Theo H. Davies & Co. Together, the five companies dominated the Hawaiian economy as the \"Big Five.\"\n\nPineapples and Hawaii\nJames Dole, also known as the Pineapple King, arrived in Hawaii in 1899. He purchased land in Wahiawa and established the first pineapple plantation in Hawaii. Confident that canned pineapples could become a popular food export, Dole built a cannery near his first plantation in 1901. Hawaiian Pineapple Company, later renamed Dole Food Company, was born.  With his profits soaring, Dole expanded and built a larger cannery in Iwilei near Honolulu Harbor in 1907. The Iwilei location made his main operations more accessible to labor. The cannery at Iwilei was in operation until 1991.  Dole found himself in the midst of an economic boom industry. In response to growing pineapple demand in 1922, Dole purchased the entire island of Lanai and transformed the Hawaiian tropical low shrublands into the largest pineapple plantation in the world. For a long stretch of time, Lanai would produce 75% of the world's pineapple and become immortalized as the \"Pineapple Island.\"By the 1930s, Hawaii became the pineapple capital of the world and pineapple production became its second largest industry. After World War II, there were a total of eight pineapple companies in Hawaii. Today pineapples are imported from Thailand and elsewhere; few are commercially grown in Hawaii.\n\nRace relations\nOne of the most prominent challenges territorial Hawaii had to face was race relations. Intermarriage was tolerated and even sought after. Many native women married immigrant men and joined their community. By 1898, most of Hawaii's population was made up of plantation workers from China, Japan, the Philippines and Portugal. Their plantation experiences molded Hawaii to become a plantation culture. The Hawaiian Pidgin language was developed on the plantations so they all could understand each other. Buddhism and Shintoism grew to become large religions. Catholicism became Hawaii's largest Christian denomination.\n\nMassie Trial\nRace relations in Hawaii took to the national spotlight on September 12, 1931 when Thalia Massie, a United States Navy officer's wife, got drunk and alleged that she was beaten and raped. That same night, the Honolulu Police Department stopped a car and detained five men, all plantation workers. Officers took the men to Massie's hospital bedroom where she identified them. Although evidence could not prove that the men were directly involved, national newspapers quickly ran stories about the brute locals on the prowl for white women in Hawaii. The jury in the initial trial failed to reach a verdict. One of the accused was afterwards severely beaten, while another, Joseph Kahahawai, was murdered. Police caught the Kahahawai killers: Massie's husband Thomas, mother Grace Fortescue, and two sailors. Famed criminal lawyer Clarence Darrow defended them. A jury of locals found them guilty and sentenced to hard labor for ten years. Outraged by the court's punishment, the territory's white leaders as well as 103 members of Congress signed a letter threatening to impose martial law over the territory. This pressured Governor Lawrence M. Judd to commute the sentences to an hour each in his executive chambers. Hawaii residents were shocked and all of America reconsidered what they thought of Hawaii's racial diversity. The term \"local\" (Hawaii's non-Caucasian population) was galvanized through the Massie trial\n\nMartial law\nFrom 1941 to 1944, following the attack on Pearl Harbor and America's entry into World War II, Territorial Governors Joseph B. Poindexter and Ingram M. Stainback stripped themselves of their administrative powers by declaring martial law. With the territorial constitution suspended, the legislature and supreme court were also dissolved indefinitely. Military law was enforced on all residents of Hawaii. The formation of the military government was mostly done by Maj. Gen. Thomas H. Green of the U.S Army Judge Advocate General's Corps, who became Military Attorney General. General Walter Short appointed himself military governor December 7, 1941. He assumed control of Hawaii and governed from ʻIolani Palace, which was quickly barricaded and fitted with trenches. He was relieved December 17 and charged with dereliction of duty, accused of making poor preparations in case of attack before the attack on Pearl Harbor.\nUnder martial law, every facet of Hawaiian life was under the control of the military governor. His government fingerprinted all residents over the age of six, imposed blackouts and curfews, rationed food and gasoline, censored the news and media, censored all mail, prohibited alcohol, assigned business hours, and administered traffic and special garbage collection. The military governor's laws were called General Orders. Violations meant punishment without appeal by military tribunals.\nAnthony, the shadow Attorney General of the period, provides different information. The \"aged and weak\" Poindexter (sic), an appointed Democrat, was variously misled into surrendering his powers. Anthony does not mention fingerprinting; corroborates gasoline rationing but not food (the latter unlike the mainland); and disproves a liquor ban by showing how the military gained handsome profits by liquor permits and fees.\nThe military government instituted employment stasis by General Order No. 91 (no leaving an employer without a letter of good standing); and the banning of courts that required witnesses and juries. Traffic violations were said to have netted prison terms and the military courts evidenced bias against civilians. There ensued a turf battle between the federal Departments of War, Justice and Interior, in which the middle one played a mediating or flip-flopping role. Indeed, it appeared War if not the Pacific Command was operating autonomously.The Glockner and Seifert cases, actually two detained, naturalized Germans, tested the military's suspension of habeas corpus. In the second year of martial law, August 1943, U.S. District Judge Metzger subpoenaed General Richardson as to why these two were held without charges. The General, according to General Order No. 31, could have had the server arrested for bringing charges against a military person, but instead had the Marshal manhandled so as to evade summons. The prisoners were released outside of Hawaii, avoiding the implicated fall of military power.\nList of Military Governors:\n\nWalter C. Short (1941)\nDelos C. Emmons (1941–1943)\nRobert C. Richardson Jr. (1943–1944)\n\nDemocratic Revolution of 1954\nThe Democratic Revolution of 1954 was a nonviolent revolution consisting of general strikes, protests, and other acts of civil disobedience. The Revolution culminated in the territorial elections of 1954 where the reign of the Hawaii Republican Party in the legislature came to an abrupt end, as they were voted out of office to be replaced by members of the Democratic Party of Hawaii.\n\nHawaii 7\nDuring the years leading up to the ousting of the Republican Party, Cold War fears brewed and the U.S. was in the middle of the Second Red Scare. The FBI employed the Smith Act toward the ILWU and Communist Party of Hawaii, arresting those who would become known as the Hawaii 7 on August 28, 1951, in synchronized raids at 6:30 that morning. They were convicted in a two-year-long trial. The Hawaii 7 were eventually released in 1958.\nJack Hall\nJohn Reinecke\nKoji Ariyoshi\nJack Kimoto\nJim Freeman\nCharles Fujimoto\nEileen Fujimoto\n\nStatehood\nThe first Congressional bill for Hawaii statehood was proposed in 1919 by Kuhio Kalanianaole, and was based upon the argument that World War I had proved Hawaii's loyalty. It was ignored, and proposals for Hawaii statehood were forgotten during the 1920s because the archipelago's rulers believed that sugar planters' interests would be better served if Hawaii remained a territory. Following the Jones-Costigan Act, another statehood bill was introduced to the House in May 1935 by Samuel Wilder King but it did not come to be voted on, largely because FDR himself strongly opposed Hawaii statehood, while \"Solid South\" Democrats who could not accept non-white Congressmen controlled all the committees.Hawaii resurrected the campaign in 1940 by placing the statehood question on the ballot. Two-thirds of the electorate in the territory voted in favor of joining the Union. After World War II, the call for statehood was repeated with even larger support, even from some mainland states. The reasons for the support of statehood were clear:\n\nHawaii wanted the ability to elect its own governor\nHawaii wanted the ability to elect the president\nHawaii wanted an end to taxation without voting representation in Congress\nHawaii suffered the first blow of the war\nHawaii's non-white ethnic populations, especially the Japanese, proved their loyalty by having served on the European frontlines\nHawaii consisted of 90% United States citizens, most born within the U.S.A former officer of the Honolulu Police Department, John A. Burns, was elected Hawaii's delegate to Congress in 1956. A Democrat, Burns won without the white vote but rather with the overwhelming support of Japanese and Filipinos in Hawaii. His election proved pivotal to the statehood movement. Upon arriving in Washington, D.C., Burns began making key political maneuvers by winning over allies among Congressional leaders and state governors. Burns' most important accomplishment was convincing Senate Majority Leader Lyndon B. Johnson (D-Texas) that Hawaii was ready to become a state, despite the continuing opposition of such Deep Southerners as James Eastland and John Sparkman.\nIn March 1959, both houses of Congress passed the Hawaii Admission Act and U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed it into law. On June 27, 1959, a plebiscite was held asking Hawaii residents to vote on accepting the statehood bill. The plebiscite passed overwhelmingly, with 94.3% voting in favor. On August 21, church bells throughout Honolulu were rung upon the proclamation that Hawaii was finally a US state.\n\nSee also\nHistory of Hawaii\nHistoric regions of the United States\nTerritorial evolution of the United States\nPassage 3:\nAngela McGlowan\nAngela McGlowan (born March 2, 1970) is an American Republican political commentator, best-selling author, and CEO of Political Strategies & Insights (PSI), a government affairs, political strategy, public relations, and advocacy consulting firm based in Oxford, Mississippi, and Washington, D.C. She is a contributor on Fox News, covering politics, special interest groups, and lobbies.McGlowan was 1994 Miss District of Columbia USA. She is the author of the 2007 book Bamboozled: How Americans Are Being Exploited by the Lies of the Liberal Agenda. In 2010, she placed third in the Republican primary for a Congressional seat in Mississippi.\n\nEarly life and education\nMcGlowan was born and raised in Oxford, Mississippi. Her mother, Alberta, born in Hernando, Mississippi, failed sixth grade because she had to pick cotton, and had to work four jobs to support five children. Her father, James Thomas McGlowan, was a professor, a United Methodist minister, a civil rights worker, and a community activist who was also the first principal from 1958 to 1960 of Hernando Central (now called Oak Grove Central Elementary School), a building for African-American students from grades 1-12 during segregation; he died of cancer in 1982 when she was 12 years old.She attended Lafayette High School in Oxford. McGlowan then attended the University of Mississippi, where she earned a B.A. in public administration with an emphasis on criminal justice and political science in 1993. While attending the university, she was a member of the school's dance team, the Rebelettes. She was Miss Magnolia in 1993. McGlowan was 1994 Miss District of Columbia USA. McGlowan has a mixed ethnic background which includes African American, Native American, Scottish, and Irish ancestry.\n\nCareer\nEarly years\nMcGlowan began her government affairs expertise by serving as government and public affairs manager for Steve Wynn's, Mirage Resorts. During her tenure, she participated in lobbying initiatives with the American Gaming Association (AGA) that laid the foundation for Mirage Resorts latest gaming properties, Bellagio in Las Vegas, Nevada, and the Beau Rivage in Biloxi, Mississippi. She also developed Mirage Resorts advocacy and community outreach programs for both Las Vegas and Biloxi.McGlowan served as Director of Outreach for the Better America Foundation, an organization founded by Senator Bob Dole that was focused on promoting community empowerment. She served as legislative/press aide to both Representative Roscoe Bartlett (R-6th Dist. Maryland), and Representative John Ensign (R-1st Dist. Nevada), working on issues of diversity, welfare reform, tax policy, and healthcare. She also served as publicist to Ensign's successful re-election campaign in 1996.From 1999 to 2005, McGlowan served as director of Government Affairs and Diversity Development for Chairman Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation. She was responsible for the development and implementation of diversity initiatives within the Fox Entertainment Group and its owned and operated interests. She was also a lobbyist and advocate within News Corporation to Congress for federal, legislative, and regulatory policies supportive of corporate objectives.\n\n2005-present\nIn 2005, McGlowan founded her own political consultancy, Political Strategies & Insights. It is a government affairs, political strategy, public relations, and advocacy consulting firm based in Oxford, Mississippi, and Washington, D.C.That year, McGlowan also became the host of Good Day Street Talk, a New York City public affairs program. She also began appearing as a right-wing speaker on PBS's news analysis program To the Contrary, BET's Tonight, and ABC's political talk show Politically Incorrect. She received the 2005 Harlem Chamber of Commerce New York City Journalist of the Year Award.McGlowan's book, Bamboozled: How Americans Are Being Exploited by the Lies of the Liberal Agenda, placed eighth on the Washington Area Bestseller List of the Washington Post for the week of Sunday, April 22, 2007.In February 2010, McGlowan announced her candidacy for Congress in Mississippi's 1st congressional district to challenge incumbent Democrat Travis Childers. She was one of 32 Black Republicans campaigning for Congress, the largest number since the Reconstruction era. Had she been elected, she would have become only the third African American elected as a Republican to the House of Representatives in 75 years. Her political positions included her view that the country needed immigration enforcement of existing laws rather than new immigration laws, a focus on better funding education, and a move towards bipartisanship. She also wanted to balance the national budget, implement tax cuts for small businesses, and create jobs in north Mississippi. She subsequently lost the Republican primary after coming in third place, garnering 15% of the vote. She was the first black candidate as well as the first woman to run in Mississippi's 1st congressional district, and left the race stating: \"We lost the battle but won the war. A milestone was achieved for others to follow.\"She subsequently returned to Fox News in June 2010. McGlowan currently serves as a political and business analyst and contributor for both Fox News and Fox Business Network, covering politics, special interest groups, and lobbies.\n\nPersonal life\nMcGlowan is married to four-star General Jack Keane, recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom.\nPassage 4:\n1920 Politics (Hawaii)\n1920 Politics also referred to as \"Jim Crow\" circa 1930, was a Democratic  political strategy to reassert the authority of the white race and promote American Anglo-Saxon values, in what was then the US Territory of Hawaii.\n\nStrike of 1920\nBefore 1920 Hawaii was divided into various nationalist groups of Whites, Hawaiians, Chinese, Portuguese, Japanese, Okinawans, Filipinos, and Koreans.\nAt the time white nationalism by Republicans had been an acceptable position. Since annexation, Hawaii's white-dominated oligarchy comprised three branches: the HSPA and Big Five sugar plantations dominated economics, the Republican Party dominated politics, and the white minority dominated society. These organs supported each other: one important example was that the plantations were a crucial source of Republican votes. On Election Day, the crude election booths allowed plantation management to survey which worker voted Republican or not; those who did not were disciplined or fired. While several workers had the right to vote, they valued their livelihood more than their right to choose their candidate.: 76 Racism was not only a social issue but more importantly an economic one. Hawaii’s plantation economy relied on the ready availability of cheap labor to work the fields, and any increase in wages was costly as pay was distributed over the large work force. For the white planters, the two largest groups — the Japanese and Filipinos — rivaled each other, dividing the labor force so that when one group went on strike the other would become strike breakers. But in 1920 the Japanese and Filipinos reconciled their differences and joined in the dual strike of 1920.\n\nFarrington\nAfter the 1920 strike, greater attention was given to the Asian majority. At the time, half of public school students were of Japanese ancestry. The white minority petitioned Governor Charles J. McCarthy for racial segregation to prevent their children for being exposed to what they believed to be the \"corrupting influences\" of the colored students. McCarthy had little sympathy for the immigrant Asian population and agreed to create English Standard Schools for whites and some Hawaiians, who were given privileges over students attending the more prevalent public schools. Republican Governor Wallace Rider Farrington came to power, stating that the “Racial elements are out of balance and seriously in need of adjusting”.: 93  Republicans feared that a united labor force would take over the economy and eventually the political system, overturning the plantation economy, race hierarchy, and social values of Hawaii. The previous strategy known as Divide-and-Control had failed. Republicans created a new strategy to prevent majority rule. Divide-and-Control was unstable since it relied on different ethnicities confronting each other. Instead of Divide-and-Control, where Japanese identity was the center of the Japanese community and the Filipino identity was the center of the Filipino community, the 1920 Politics strategy was to Americanize the Japanese and Filipino communities to disconnect them from their own identity, to adopt a Western identity and to further the power of the white population.\nThe Filipinos were considered a mongrel race, the result of Asian and Hispanic mixing that produced a primitive people of low intelligence. People of Japanese origin were regarded as a pure race and better organized, despite being described as \"paganistic barbarians\". Armed with this logic, Republicans decided to assimilate the Japanese first and then the Filipinos. The logic of the campaign was that, after the Japanese had been assimilated, the Filipinos, with their limited mental capacity, would be too weak to oppose the movement. If they concentrated on trying to assimilate the Filipinos first, it was likely that they would turn to the Japanese to arrange resistance to the campaign. Even if the Filipinos were broken, the Republicans would still have to challenge the Japanese who had organized the Filipinos.\n\nJapanese\nFarrington’s strategy was to target the schools and the next generations while the plantations dealt with the adults by promoting Christianity, thereby converting the ethnically Japanese population to the predominant American religion.\nImmigrants to Hawaii usually encountered Christian groups proselytizing to newcomers, but with plantation owners allowing high tolerance for the immigrants’ culture, these immigrants continued to follow their own religions. During the strike of 1920, Buddhist and Shinto churches took the risk of supporting the striking workers. Christian churches on the other hand wanted to maintain good relations with the plantation owners and opposed the strike.\nA solution was proposed by Umetaro Okumura as a means to assimilate the Japanese population: with his father Reverend Takie Okumura, he proposed evangelicalizing the Japanese community. Once converted to Christianity, the planters could manipulate the Japanese through the churches and discourage their workers from criticizing poor conditions, leaving the labor force, requesting pay raises, and creating unions. An additional advantage to Okumura was if he was effective in converting the Japanese community into a Christian fundamentalist society, it gave him the opportunity to become the theocratic leader over the Japanese.\nThe white oligarchy believed that Japanese would always believe another ethnic Japanese, this being a primitive but effective defense amongst a people of limited intelligence. Believing Takie Okumura could gain acceptance as a Japanese and infiltrate the Japanese community to carry out his agenda, the oligarchy gave its support to Okumura. He received support from planters brothers William and George Castle, former Republican governors George Carter, Walter Frear, and the governor at that time, Farrington. In exchange for higher productivity the Evangelical churches would be financially secured by the plantations and Republican would give government support in the spread and influence of Christianity.\nOkumura was an avid opponent of the unions, and he refused to shelter or aid strikers following the evictions. His philosophy was that to use labor unions to challenge the white-dominated power structure might produce immediate gains but at a long-term loss, as a hostile relationship with the power holders would cause difficulties in the future. Instead, he believed in enduring the immediate hardships and accepting white-dominated authorities, becoming Americanized and Christianized, so that they could say ‘your country is my country; your God is my God’. Okumura believed deeply in the rule of law, and under the Republican administration he made a crusade of ridding Honolulu of prostitution and gambling. Since 1919, labor unions had been categorized as organized crime. To Okumura, they were the rural counterpart to Honolulu’s syndicates and the unionists and pagan priests that supported them were no better than the pimps and gangsters of Honolulu.\nIn 1921, Farrington applied new requirements for school emphasizing the teaching of English Language, American History, and democracy.: 309  In 1923, the Government passed Act 30, Act 171, and in 1925 Act 152. The Acts limited the range of subjects taught and put financial pressure on Foreign language schools. Okumura was appointed to a committee to regulate the Language school text books.\nIn January 1921, Okumura began an “Education Campaign” to coax Japanese into Christianity by attempting to persuade them of its similarities to Japanese culture and to promote a strong work ethic. Okumura initially convinced Buddhists clergy and Japanese businessmen to support the program, believing Okumura was taking an initiative to reconcile tensions between the two faiths and join together to alleviate hostilities between Whites and Japanese.\nThe campaign was flawed from the start, since it was known that Okumura opposed the 1920 strike and sided with planters. It was also known that the plantations were providing Okumura and his colleagues with facilities and paying their expenses, Okumura’s close relations with the planters raising distrust amongst the Japanese. The Japanese unionists began to reject Okumura as a “traitor” and “betrayer”. Many did not go the programs and those who did found it taught them to become subservient workers. Amongst Okumura’s teachings was to reject materialism and value their role in society. However, this approach met with an adverse reaction from an audience with few possessions and low social status, and Okumura was accused of being a propagandist for the wealthy social elite. Buddhist priests were irate to discover the Christian agenda to convert Buddhists and that Umetaro Okumura was discussing with the planters the ways to restrict Buddhist practices and close Buddhist churches on plantation land. Okumura was also known for his offensive remarks toward Buddhists, in which he described them as “alien” and “pagan”. Instead of attracting the Japanese to Christianity to correct their supposed spiritual flaws, the criticisms deepened their devotion to Buddhism or Shinto and their rejection of Christianity.The integration program was based largely on the Haole-Hawaiian Alliance.: 311  Since the missionaries of the 1820s, the Hawaiian religion, which was regarded as \"primitive\", was easily overcome by Christianity. Hawaiians had disowned their heritage, traded Hawaiian values for American values, and adopted English, driving the Hawaiian language to near extinction. Hawaiians were regarded as the proper colored Americans and model second class citizens, and for this they were given opportunities and rewards for their subservience. But in the eyes of the Evangelicals, the Japanese were frustratingly irrational, voluntarily subjecting themselves to unnecessary hardship and discrimination by their refusal to forgo their heritage and religious beliefs. The Evangelicals believed that what they regarded as the Japanese community's mutinous and hostile attitudes were what kept them third-class citizens and barred them for the advantages enjoy by other Hawaiians.\nThe foreign languages controversy was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1927 in Farrington v. Tokushige. A judgement was made on Farrington's and the Republicans' interpretation of American values, that certain people who deserved freedoms should receive them, while those whom they believed to have abused their rights should not. The languages schools were believed to be an abuse of the American freedom to perpetuate un-American views. The case was regarded as exposing hypocritical attitudes and for being an embarrassment, and the Supreme Court disagreed with the Hawaiian government and found Farrington violating the same values he was imposing. For Farrington and the Republicans, Okumura proved himself a liability more than an asset, and they disassociated themselves from him.\nWith little progress and after the publicizing of the result of the Supreme Court case, the Planters reanalyzed the Education Campaign and began to doubt Okumura's effectiveness, and complained he had made the Japanese more skeptical of American culture, and more belligerent, than before. The Planters even accused Okumura of being a double agent, because rather than making the Japanese submissive workers and solving the \"Japanese Problem\", he appeared to have exacerbated the conflict and put Whites and Japanese further at odds. The planters discontinued funding Okumura’s campaign in 1927 and Okumura ended it in 1929.\n\nJudd\nShortly before Lawrence M. Judd became governor, in July 1929, a series of events revived 1920 Politics. In 1928 a ten-year-old white boy named George Gill Jamieson was kidnapped and murdered by a 19-year-old Japanese man, Myles Fukunaga, who was executed after Judd became governor. In 1931, a white woman named Thalia Massie, claimed to have been raped by five or six Hawaiians. In a separate incident on the same night of the rape, five non-white men were put on trial, which ended in a hung jury. After the trial, one suspect, Horace Ida, was beaten, and another was shot and killed. The killers of the latter, Joseph Kahahawai, involved Massie’s mother and husband and two other navy men. After pressure from Congress and the white community, Judd communed their sentences of 10 years to one hour in his office. The Japanese compared the petition for clemency of Fukunaga, a colored man, who killed a white person, to Massie’s parents and cohorts: whites, who had killed a colored person. Not even the white community was satisfied with the uneven handling of the two cases. Judd was criticized for giving a commutation, not a pardon, and although the difference in the two rulings was negligible, it was widely believed that Judd was not committed to the belief that Massie’s avengers should be punished for their crime.\nFollowing these events, Judd and the Republican government had to reassure the white minority in Hawaii, and whites nationally, of their safety. Under Farrington, the Hawaiians were exempted from the 1920 Politics by the Haole-Hawaiian Alliance. But after the Massie Affair, doubts arose over entrusting the power of authority to the Hawaiians. Under Alliance, Hawaiians were able to receive government jobs which had included police officers and prison guards. But, after examining these positions, U.S. Attorney General Seth Richardson found an incompetent police force and sympathetic prison guards. The Hawaiians had betrayed the trust of the white leadership to carry out their demands, were regarded as a liability and phased out by whites.: 57  Further pressure to Americanize Hawaii came from a renewed attempt at statehood.\n\nJapanese\nUnder Judd, a new 1920 Politics strategy was implemented against the Japanese population, which was to ignore them. This change had several causes. Judd had learned from Farrington’s social attack, which had been intended to subordinate the Japanese community (which largely consisted of manual laborers and domestic servants), instead made them feel anti-American. Similarly, Buddhists and Shintos became anti-Christian. At the same time, whites became increasingly anti-Japanese and Christians anti-Buddhist. The attempted resolution to the problem concluded in a lawsuit that the Territory lost, thereby failing in its plan to assimilate the Japanese community through a policy of subordination.\nIn addition to avoiding conflict with the Japanese majority was the prospect of future statehood, and the incitement of civil unrest would not represent Hawaii positively to Congress. Furthermore, the statehood committee made a conscious effort to avoid discussion of the unassimilated Japanese.\nOne of the fears of the failure of the assimilation policy was soon realized: Japanese laborers left the plantations at the earliest opportunity and established their own shops and small businesses, and felt no need to assimilate as they already formed the majority of the population. Another fear arose: that if the Japanese became more politically active, their higher population size meant they would dominate the vote. Senator Hiram Bingham III, grandson of Hiram Bingham I, preferred the islands of his birth to remain in Caucasian hands rather than let democracy shift power into the hands of the Japanese. In 1932, he proposed a possible solution to Congress, in a bill to make Hawaii a military territory under the U.S. Navy. It would have discontinued elections until Hawaii could be settled by Caucasians.For many Japanese in the 1930s, minimal privacy at the voting stations, voter intimidation by Republicans that risked one’s job and livelihood, and a choice between anti-immigrant Democrats or white supremacist Republicans, resulted in more than 90% of Japanese-Americans deciding not to vote.\nUnder the new policy, the Japanese community was allowed to practice its traditions, culture, and religion relatively unharassed by the government, planters, and Americanizing Christian organizations, on the condition that they did not interfere with the white community. The Christian movement was met with a strong counter-movement as the Japanese rejected Christianity as a ploy by the Planters to subordinate them. This created a resurgence of Buddhism in the 1930s, which Christians dubbed “re-paganization”. Japanese businessmen helped finance Buddhists and Shinto ministries to move off the plantations to become more autonomous and form a strong Buddhist establishment. At its height, Buddhists accounted for one-third of the territory's population. Students continued to be subjected to right-wing speakers in schools, and Japanese were rewarded for showing progress in assimilating. Although the situation was judged to be far from satisfactory, the Japanese generally preferred Judd’s neglect over persecution under Farrington. Conversely, Judd received criticism by the largely white evangelical community, that Buddhists and Shintos were allowed to practice their religion freely, even in public, without being challenged or in fear of governmental interference.\nBy the end of the 1930s, a problem with the Haoles arose: the strategy of ignoring the Japanese meant that whites who were unaware of 1920s Politics did not consider Japanese to be a menace to American society. Some whites became interested in eastern traditions, took a curiosity in Buddhist beliefs, and considered intermarriage with Japanese people. However, concerns were expressed about what was perceived to be the erosion of traditional values by “Japanese Minded” Whites.\n\nFilipinos\nSince the Great Depression, the treatment of Filipinos was particularly harsh, as they were considered the most inferior of the Asian race. As a result, acts of defiance such as striking, unionizing, or protesting were resolved with deportation back to the Philippines. Furthermore, around 6,000 Filipinos were unemployed in Hawaii, further reducing their collective bargaining power. Unlike the Japanese, most Filipinos still worked in the plantations, and without Pablo Manlapit, the labor movement collapsed.\nA product of the Great Depression was the Wagner Act that was signed into law in 1935, despite strong efforts by the Big Five and Hawaii Republicans to lobby against it. In response, Hawaii’s Republican-controlled government flatly refused to acknowledge the Act, claiming that, as Hawaii was a territory, and not a state, the law did not apply. However, in 1937, Hawaii was forced to implement the Wagner Act by the federal government.\nDespite the Depression a successful wild cat strike occurred in Puunene, Maui, resulting in others strikes on Molokai, Hamakua, Kahuku, and Kekaha.\n\nWorld War II\nPoliticians continued to wait for an answer on statehood; the 1930s turned into the 1940s with no decisive answer forthcoming, and any serious discussion of racial inequality in Hawaii remained in reserve of an affirmative decision on statehood.\n\nQuinn\nUnder William F. Quinn, who became governor in 1957, senior politicians in Hawaii became open about bringing an end to 1920 Politics. Quinn was not only been a member of the Republican Club, a faction of the Party opposed to 1920 Politics, but had been the second leader of the Club. After the sweeping losses of the election of 1954, Republicans had to change their political strategy in order to survive.\nPassage 5:\nUneven and combined development\nUneven and combined development (or unequal and combined development or uneven development) is a concept in Marxian political economy intended to describe dynamics of human history involving the interaction of capitalist laws of motion and starting world market conditions whose national units are highly heterogeneous. The concept is used by Marxist scholars concerned with economic development. David Harvey is an advocate of the usefulness of this theory to reconstruct historical materialism on Modern terms. It is an accepted key concept in academic economic geography.\nThe idea was applied systematically by Leon Trotsky around the turn of the 20th century to the case of Russia, when he was analyzing the developmental possibilities for industrialization in the Russian empire, and the likely future of the Tsarist regime in Russia. The notion was then generalized and became the basis of Trotskyist politics of permanent revolution, which implied a rejection of the Stalinist idea that a human society inevitably developed through a uni-linear sequence of necessary \"stages\". Before Trotsky, Nikolay Chernyshevsky, Vasily Vorontsov, and others proposed similar ideas.\n\nBackground\nTrotsky's concept was originally inspired by a series of articles by Alexander Helphand (better known as \"Parvus\") on \"War and Revolution\" in the Russian journal Iskra in 1904. At first, Trotsky intended this concept only to describe a characteristic evolutionary pattern in the worldwide expansion of the capitalist mode of production from the 16th century onwards, through the growth of a world economy which connected more and more peoples and territories together through trade, migration and investment. His focus was also initially mainly on the history of the Russian empire, where the most advanced technological and scientific developments co-existed with extremely primitive and superstitious cultures.\nIn the 1920s and 1930s, Trotsky increasingly generalised the concept of uneven and combined development to the whole of human history, and even to processes of evolutionary biology, as well as the formation of the human personality - as a general dialectical category.\nThe concept played a certain role in the fierce theoretical debates during the political conflict between the supporters of Joseph Stalin and Trotsky's Left Opposition, a debate which ranged from the historical interpretation of the Russian revolution and economic strategies for the transition to socialism, to the correct understanding of principles of Marxism.\n\nTrotsky's theory\nDifferent countries, Trotsky observed, developed and advanced to a large extent independently from each other, in ways which were quantitatively unequal (e.g. the local rate and scope of economic growth and population growth) and qualitatively different (e.g. nationally specific cultures and geographical features).  In other words, countries had their own specific national history with national peculiarities.\nAt the same time, all the different countries did not exist in complete isolation from each other; they were also interdependent parts of a world society, a larger totality, in which they all co-existed together, in which they shared many characteristics, and in which they influenced each other through processes of cultural diffusion, trade, political relations and various “spill-over effects” from one country to another.Sociologically speaking, this had five main effects:\n\na more backward, older or more primitive country would adopt parts of the culture of a more advanced, or more modern society, and a more advanced culture could also adopt or merge with parts of a more primitive culture – with good or bad effects.\nCultural practices, institutions, traditions and ways of life belonging to both very old and very new epochs and phases of human history were all combined, juxtaposed and linked together in a rather unusual way, within one country.\nIn turn, this meant that one could not really say that different societies all developed simply through the same sort of linear sequence of necessary developmental stages, but rather that they could adopt/utilize the results of developments reached elsewhere, without going through all the previous evolutionary stages which led up to those results.  Some countries could thus \"skip\", \"telescope\" or \"compress\" developmental stages which other countries took hundreds of years to go through, or, very rapidly carry through a modernization process that took other countries centuries to achieve.\nDifferent countries could both aid or advance the socio-economic progress of other countries through trade, subsidies and contributing resources, or  block and brake other countries as competitors from making progress by preventing the use of capital, technology, trading routes, labour, land or other kinds of resources. In Trotsky's theory of imperialism, the domination of one country by another does not mean that the dominated country is prevented from development altogether, but rather that it develops mainly according to the requirements of the dominating country. For example, an export industry will develop around mining and farm products in the dominated country, but the rest of the economy is not developed, so that the country's economy becomes more unevenly developed than it was before, rather than achieving balanced development. Or, a school system is set up with foreign assistance, but the schools teach only the messages that the dominating country wants to hear.\nThe main tendencies and trends occurring at the level of world society as a whole, could be also found in each separate country, where they combined with unique local trends – but this was a locally specific “mix”, so that some world trends asserted themselves more strongly or faster, others weaker and slower in each specific country. Thus, a country could be very advanced in some areas of activity, but at the same time comparatively retarded in other areas. One effect was that the response to the same events of world significance could be quite different in different countries, because the local people attached different \"weightings\" to experiences and therefore drew different conclusions.According to Trotsky, the unequal and combined development of different countries had an effect on the class structure of society.\nFor example, the Russian empire in 1917 was largely a peasant society composed of many different nationalities and governed by an absolutist state headed by the Czar; popular democracy did not exist.\nA process of industrialization had begun in the main cities since Peter the Great (for example, the Putilov steel works established in Petrograd - where the February 1917 revolution began, with a strike - was the largest in the world at the time). But this urban industrialization process relied mainly on the investment of foreign capital from France, Britain and other countries, and was limited to some urban areas and regions.\nThe Russian bourgeoisie which developed under the tutelage of the Czarist state lacked much power, and was politically weak. The bourgeoisie was unable to establish political democracy. At the same time, a militant industrial working class developed in the main cities, concentrated in large factories and plants.\nIn this way, the archaic culture of primitive peasant production and a semi-feudal state combined with the culture of modern industrial society.Trotsky believed that this would shape the unique character of the Russian revolution. Namely, the Russian bourgeoisie was politically too weak and too dependent on the Czarist state to challenge its autocratic rule, and therefore the revolution against Czarist rule would be spearheaded by the revolt of urban workers.\nThus, the political and modernizing tasks normally associated in Europe with the leadership of the rising bourgeoisie, such as fighting for popular democracy and civil rights against absolutism, land ownership reform, industrializing the country, and national self-determination for oppressed nationalities, would have to be carried out in the Russian empire under the leadership of working-class parties, in particular the Russian Social-Democratic Labor Party which had been outlawed (although there were several other socialist, nationalist and liberal parties).\nIn the chaos towards the end of the First World War, in which Russian soldiers fought against the imperial German army, this political assessment proved largely correct. The provisional government established by the February revolution in 1917 collapsed and the October revolution, in which the Russian Marxists played a dominant role, destroyed Czarist state power completely. Thereafter, the Russian bourgeoisie was largely expropriated; most businesses then fell under state ownership.\nA new stage in Trotsky's understanding of uneven and combined development in world history was reached in his analyses of fascism and populism in Germany, France, Spain and Italy. Trotsky makes it clear, the human progress is not a linear, continuously advancing process of bourgeois modernization - progress can also be reversed or undone, and ancient cults, superstitions or barbarous traditions can be revived, even although nobody previously thought that was possible.\n\nRudolf Hilferding's theory\nAround the time that Trotsky settled in Vienna as a journalist in exile, after escaping from Siberia a second time, the Austro-Marxist Rudolf Hilferding wrote his famous book Finance Capital (first published in 1910) in which Hilferding mentions an idea very similar to Trotsky's. The passage occurs in chapter 22 on \"the export of capital and the struggle for economic territory\". It has never been proved whether Hilferding was influenced in any way by what Trotsky had written, although it is known they corresponded with each other, but Hilferding's own analysis of \"the latest phase of capitalist development\" certainly influenced a whole generation of socialist leaders. In any case similar notions were widespread among socialists throughout Central, Eastern, and Southeastern Europe at this time. Among other things, Hilferding states:The export of capital, especially since it has assumed the form of industrial and finance capital, has enormously accelerated the overthrow of all the old social relations, and the involvement of the whole world in capitalism. Capitalist development did not take place independently in each individual country, but instead capitalist relations of production and exploitation were imported along with capital from abroad, and indeed imported at the level already attained in the most advanced country. Just as a newly established industry today does not develop from handicraft beginnings and techniques into a modern giant concern, but is established from the outset as an advanced capitalist enterprise, so capitalism is now imported into a new country in its most advanced form and exerts its revolutionary effects far more strongly and in a much shorter time than was the case, for instance, in the capitalist development of Holland and England.Hilferding's insight was rarely noticed by English-speaking Marxists. His book Finance Capital, which went out of print several times, was never translated into English until 1981 (i.e. 70 years later). After the publication of Lenin's classic interpretation of imperialism as the highest (and final) stage of capitalism in 1917, most Marxist writers based their analyses of imperialism on Lenin's book. Even though, on several occasions throughout the book, Lenin cites Hilferding approvingly, by the time that Hilferding became Finance Minister in Germany in 1923, the Leninists regarded him as a reformist renegade, and his analyses were no longer trusted or taken seriously.\n\nContemporary applications\nThe idea of uneven and combined development, as formulated by Trotsky, as well as Lenin's \"law\" of uneven economic and political development under capitalism are still being used today, especially in academic studies of international relations, archaeology, anthropology and development economics, as well as in discussions of the Trotskyist movement. Such International relations schools as the world-systems theory and dependency theory have been both influenced by Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism and Trotsky's writings on the subject.\n\nEconomic geography\nGeography has produced influential scholarship on the idea of uneven development. Geography started to lean left politically before the 1970s resulting in a particular interest in questions of inequality and uneven development (UD). UD has since become somewhat of a homegrown theory in Geography as geographers have worked to explain what causes inequality within different scales of space, locally, nationally and internationally. Key scholars in this field include Doreen Massey, Neil Smith and David Harvey.\nUneven development results from the \"spatially and temporally uneven processes and outcomes that are characteristic, and functional to capitalism\".\nMuch of neoclassical economic theory holds that features of unevenness, such as income inequality, equalizes as a result of capital diffusion throughout the open market.\nProponents argue that investment liberalization allows foreign capital to invest in capital-poor countries, yielding the highest rates of return, and that global integration promotes competitive advantage.\nNeoclassical theory contends that newly globalized, liberalized and capitalized developing countries have the added advantage over developed countries in that they are able to draw on existing markets, capital flow regimes and technologies.This has the effect of placing all countries on an even playing field. The result is a global economy in equilibrium, or in other words, convergence. As such, in the neoclassical view, uneven development is merely an interim stage of economic development that can be erased by the free market.Marxist geographers, on the other hand, assert that uneven development is persistently produced and reproduced by capital diffusion, and therefore, is an inherent and permanent feature of capitalism. Unlike the neoliberal contention of the erasure of disparities towards convergence, Marxists maintain that capital accumulation depends on differential economic climates for its regeneration. Harvey states that accumulation \"is the engine which powers growth under the capitalist mode of production. The capitalist system is therefore highly dynamic and inevitably expansionary\". The dynamism of capitalism is due to its persistent search for competitive advantage and consequently, its movement away from oversaturated economies towards new spaces from which it can extract greater profit. For instance, developed economies are characterized by high land rents and wages, and unionized labour, translating into high costs of production and lower gains. By contrast, developing economies have abundant pliable labour, and low rents and wages. As such, it is favourable for capital investments to move into the latter economy from the former in the interest of gaining greater rates of return. Kiely argues that capital diffusion throughout the global market remains a highly uneven process marked by reversals of comparative advantage and by cycles of investment and disinvestment, having the effect of elevating some spaces while simultaneously marginalizing others.Differential economic environments have material effects on the ground. Processes of capital accumulation through space and time create new geographic landscapes shaped by crisis, deindustrialization and capital flight on the one hand, and influxes of capital and industrialization on the other. Capitalism not only reshuffles core-periphery relations, but rather, as Smith claims, it also penetrates all geographic scales. At the urban scale, differential rent gaps trigger investment and disinvestment in particular neighborhoods driving gentrification. On the global scale, integrated economies provoke time-space compression enabling enhanced communication and capital mobility. Smith argues that the subsequent erosion of the nation scale as the primary agent created a pivotal link between the global and urban scales. Since the 1990s, the increasingly integrated global economy has given greater importance to the role of the city. Indeed, world city building has become the geographical force of capitalism. New spaces of accumulation in Asia, Latin America and Africa are gaining competitive advantage as new centres of command and control and of surplus capital.Other elements of neoliberal thought such as reducing the \"left arm\" of the state including welfare and support for the poor create even bigger inequalities between residents of the same areas, also resulting in uneven development.\n\nTom Nairn and the revival of nationalism\nMarxist historian Tom Nairn has argued that uneven development can also lead to peripheral nationalism, for example in Scotland.  Peripheral regions tend to promote nationalist movements when regional inequalities overlap with ethnic differences, or when membership of a larger state no longer presents advantages. In underdeveloped regions, nationalist movements mobilise the population against the persistence of ethnic economic inequality.\n\nHelena Norberg-Hodge and uneven development in Northern India\nHelena Norberg-Hodge is an economist who spent more than 30 years in Ladakh. She argues that uneven development and crises often affect people now because of past economic activities. To solve the problem, the fundamental economic approach needs change from \"globalizing\" to \"localizing\". Localization can contribute to reduce CO2 emission, solve the economic problems, and restore biodiversity as well as cultural diversity. Localizing is one of the ways to create secure jobs in the global population.\nNorberg-Hodge based her argument on her experience of witnessing changes in Ladakh, before and after the region was subsidized to enhance economic activities and promote development. The subsidies meant that products from thousands of miles away could be sold cheaper than locally made products, which destroyed the local market. It quickly lead to unemployment and religious strife. Norberg-Hodge raised critical questions about the effects of  spending on infrastructure (such as roads) intended to stimulate the economy and reduce costs, in order to achieve greater social wellbeing. The point is, that the globalized economy enables people to control other places from a far distance, without knowing the situation in the region. Large investments subsidizing the transportation system make products from thousands of miles away cheaper than locally made products. Rather than improving the local community, the local market collapses and local people lose their jobs, while investors far away make a lot of profit from business ventures that create more unequal development than there was before.\n\nSee also\nAlexander Gerschenkron\nBackwardness\nDevelopment theory\nLate industrialisation\nNon-simultaneity\nStrategy of unbalanced growth\n\nNotes\nPassage 6:\nCloward–Piven strategy\nThe Cloward–Piven strategy is a political strategy outlined in 1966 by American sociologists and political activists Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven.\n\nHistory\nCloward and Piven were both professors at the Columbia University School of Social Work. The strategy was outlined in a May 1966 article in the liberal magazine The Nation titled  \"The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty\".The two stated that many Americans who were eligible for welfare were not receiving benefits, and that a welfare enrollment drive would strain local budgets, precipitating a crisis at the state and local levels that would be a wake-up call for the federal government, particularly the Democratic Party. There would also be side consequences of this strategy, according to Cloward and Piven. These would include: easing the plight of the poor in the short-term (through their participation in the welfare system); shoring up support for the national Democratic Party-then splintered by pluralistic interests (through its cultivation of poor and minority constituencies by implementing a national \"solution\" to poverty); and relieving local governments of the financially and politically onerous burdens of public welfare (through a national \"solution\" to poverty).\n\nStrategy\nCloward and Piven's article is focused on forcing the Democratic Party, which in 1966 controlled the presidency and both houses of the United States Congress, to take federal action to help the poor. They stated that full enrollment of those eligible for welfare \"would produce bureaucratic disruption in welfare agencies and fiscal disruption in local and state governments\" that would: \"...deepen existing divisions among elements in the big-city Democratic coalition: the remaining white middle class, the working-class ethnic groups and the growing minority poor. To avoid a further weakening of that historic coalition, a national Democratic administration would be constrained to advance a federal solution to poverty that would override local welfare failures, local class and racial conflicts and local revenue dilemmas.\"They further wrote:\n\nThe ultimate objective of this strategy—to wipe out poverty by establishing a guaranteed annual income—will be questioned by some. Because the ideal of individual social and economic mobility has deep roots, even activists seem reluctant to call for national programs to eliminate poverty by the outright redistribution of income.\nMichael Reisch and Janice Andrews wrote that Cloward and Piven \"proposed to create a crisis in the current welfare system – by exploiting the gap between welfare law and practice – that would ultimately bring about its collapse and replace it with a system of guaranteed annual income. They hoped to accomplish this end by informing the poor of their rights to welfare assistance, encouraging them to apply for benefits and, in effect, overloading an already overburdened bureaucracy.\"\n\nFocus on Democrats\nThe authors pinned their hopes on creating disruption within the Democratic Party: \"Conservative Republicans are always ready to declaim the evils of public welfare, and they would probably be the first to raise a hue and cry. But deeper and politically more telling conflicts would take place within the Democratic coalition...Whites – both working class ethnic groups and many in the middle class – would be aroused against the ghetto poor, while liberal groups, which until recently have been comforted by the notion that the poor are few... would probably support the movement. Group conflict, spelling political crisis for the local party apparatus, would thus become acute as welfare rolls mounted and the strains on local budgets became more severe.”\n\nReception and criticism\nMichael Tomasky, writing about the strategy in the 1990s and again in 2011, called it \"wrongheaded and self-defeating\", writing: \"It apparently didn't occur to [Cloward and Piven] that the system would just regard rabble-rousing black people as a phenomenon to be ignored or quashed.\"\n\nImpact of the strategy\nIn papers published in 1971 and 1977, Cloward and Piven argued that mass unrest in the United States, especially between 1964 and 1969, did lead to a massive expansion of welfare rolls, though not to the guaranteed-income program that they had hoped for. Political scientist Robert Albritton disagreed, writing in 1979 that the data did not support this thesis; he offered an alternative explanation for the rise in welfare caseloads.\nIn his 2006 book Winning the Race, political commentator John McWhorter attributed the rise in the welfare state after the 1960s to the Cloward–Piven strategy, but wrote about it negatively, stating that the strategy \"created generations of black people for whom working for a living is an abstraction\".According to historian Robert E. Weir in 2007: \"Although the strategy helped to boost recipient numbers between 1966 and 1975, the revolution its proponents envisioned never transpired.\"\n\nSee also\nGuaranteed minimum income",6  "char_len": 74162,7  "document_hash": "7e7cbbe7a87ff0173b13ccb7c0d9acd86185d8d56f4fc9411bd355168551f0cb",8  "questions": [9    {10      "question_id": "q00",11      "qtype": "hotpotqa",12      "question": "1920 Politics was a Republican political strategy to reassert the authority of the white race in which US state?"13    }14  ]15}