-
AI in Education Deliberative Poll for High School Educators

Are you worried about the impact AI can have on your classroom or excited about its potential? Do you wonder how you can utilize AI in your teaching or do you feel like it dehumanizes the learning process? Are you eager to learn about what “Artificial Intelligence” entails and how it can impact your classroom? 

If any of these questions have crossed your mind, we invite you to join Stanford's Deliberative Democracy Lab on Saturday, May 18, from 10:00 am to 2:45 pm (Pacific Time) to discuss with fellow educators how AI should be used and regulated in schools. You will discuss policies regarding the use of AI in schools — whether it should be banned from the Wi-Fi or left up to teachers and students to discern what “appropriate usage” means. You will also get to meet and ask questions to experts in the fields.

This will be an online event hosted on Stanford's Online Deliberation Platform. There will be sessions between deliberating teachers and expert panels where there will be Q&A time. Further details will be emailed to you.

SCHEDULE

10:00 am - 11:15 am: First Small Group Deliberation Session

11:15 am - 12:00 pm: Plenary Session 1

12:00 pm - 12:45 pm: Break

12:45 pm - 2:00 pm: Second Small Group Deliberation Session

2:00 pm - 2:45 pm: Plenary Session 2

This event is being led by students at The Quarry Lane School, Saratoga High School, and Lynbrook High School.

Online.

Open to high school educators only.

Workshops
Authors
News Type
News
Date
Paragraphs

This story originally appeared in the Stanford Report.

As Americans head to the polls this year, a growing number of voters are disgruntled by national politics and their elected officials. Survey after survey has found that Americans are increasingly falling out of favor with the country’s two political parties – a trend likely to continue in what Stanford political scientist Didi Kuo is describing as a “brutal” campaign season.

“Americans are already exhausted by it, even though it has barely begun,” said Kuo, a center fellow at the Freeman-Spogli Institute for International Studies (FSI).

Like other democratic institutions, political parties are reckoning with a crisis of public confidence.

“Political parties remain critical to organizing democracy but they are beleaguered,” said Kuo.

Stanford Report sat down with Kuo to learn more about the discord between political parties, candidates, and voters and what these fissures may mean for the 2024 election.

No longer gatekeepers


Kuo sees several factors that have led to political parties’ waning support among the American public, including reforms made in the early 1970s.

Until then, political parties used to have more power in selecting the party nomination for presidency.

But after Hubert Humphrey secured the Democratic Party nomination in 1968 for president of the United States without ever taking part in any of the country’s primary races, changes to the presidential nomination process were made to give voters more power in deciding who will represent the party at the general election.

“Political parties used to be gatekeepers in politics. Now, voters have a much bigger say in determining who’s going to be the presidential candidate,” said Kuo.

Those changes made it possible for Donald Trump, an insurgent candidate who had neither formal membership in the Republican Party nor any previous military or government experience to secure the nomination.

Over recent years, incumbents have faced challengers in primary elections who often tout their lack of government experience as a strength rather than a weakness.

“The party seems to have very little leverage determining who gets to run under its party label,” Kuo said.

This makes the party vulnerable to outsiders and radical candidates, and also undermines the party’s ability to choose candidates who share the party’s priorities. The party has few ways to manage factional conflict or vet candidates for office when it cannot serve as a gatekeeper in politics.

More susceptible to outside influences


Another change Kuo sees as transformative to the current political landscape was the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 – also known as the McCain-Feingold Act – that limited financial contributions people can make to political parties and campaigns.

“That had the consequence of expanding the type of financing that donors would pursue outside of the party through 501(c)(4)s or super PACs,” Kuo said.

In addition, the ruling by the Supreme Court in the 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case equating corporate, political communication to that of an individual has also accelerated new ways for political power to take shape.

“What we see is a world not just of parties trying to vie for seats in the legislature or candidates, but also of these external party organizations that sometimes are connected to the party and sometimes not,” Kuo said. “These groups can run their own ads, drum up support for their own issues, and collect a lot of money, sometimes undisclosed, on behalf of specific candidates and parties.”

Kuo thinks these party-like organizations will be particularly important in 2024. “Many groups are mobilizing voters around specific issues, such as abortion rights, while others may mobilize for and against specific candidates, like the faction of ‘Never-Trumpers’ from 2020,” Kuo said.

A growing appeal of populist candidates


Another issue Kuo is paying attention to is the rise of populist, extremist candidates, a trend occurring both in the U.S. and across the globe.

Kuo, alongside her colleagues at FSI, have examined how after the financial crisis of 2008, an increasing number of voters on both the left and right have become frustrated – aggrieved, even – by their democratic and economic institutions.

“One of the things people were turning toward were populist candidates who claimed that the entire system was rigged,” Kuo said.

Kuo added: “2024 is going to be a really difficult year for Congress. It’ll be a real test of whether or not extremists can still outperform moderate Republicans.”

New ways to mobilize


The advent of digital and social media has had a transformative effect on how political parties and candidates can rally their base. In addition, data analytics afforded by these new tools has also helped candidates build targeted and effective communication strategies – all without the backing of a political party.

An example of that is Stacey Abrams, who led a galvanizing campaign to flip her home state of Georgia from Republican to Democrat in the 2020 election.

“Stacey Abrams had a massive organizational, multiyear effort in Georgia because she was convinced that you could turn the state blue, but the party was not behind those efforts,” Kuo said. “It was driven at a local level.”

Meanwhile, the same tools that have helped candidates reach people at the local level are also being used to find support beyond their precincts.

“There’s empirical evidence showing that new candidates who come into the political process to challenge an incumbent often have a lot of support from outside their district,” said Kuo. “It’s easier now for people to find candidates they support and circumvent a traditional party approach to cultivating a candidate.”

No longer reflecting what voters want or believe


When Americans are surveyed about how they feel on different policy issues, they are actually not that divided. Rather, it is the political class that has become more polarized, leading voters to feel alienated from their party.

“People feel distant from parties more and more,” Kuo said.

Increasingly, people are shunning a party label entirely and identifying as independent. Here too, political scientists see changes among how independents behave as well.

The conventional wisdom was that independent voters were people who didn’t like labels but were still solidly Democrats or Republicans, Kuo explained.

“Now, there is new evidence showing that people who call themselves ‘independent’ are turned off by the party system and see both parties as corrupt. They are very cynical about the role of special interests,” she added. “They don’t think their vote matters. When people develop this attitude, that’s more of a rejection of the party system. Many voters may feel unenthusiastic about another Biden-Trump contest and disillusioned with both parties. However, there was record turnout in 2020, and hopefully cynicism will not keep people away from the polls when the stakes of the race are so high.”

Political parties have gotten weaker


Overall, these changes have culminated in political parties becoming weaker.

“Parties have always had this tension between being run by a set of leaders who make decisions and also being democratic,” said Kuo.

Over the year to come, Kuo expects tensions to continue – not only among political parties but with other democratic institutions as well.

“I think there will continue to be a big tension between what the Supreme Court rules on things like democracy and rights and what people actually want,” Kuo said, adding how this has already been seen at the state level where voters have taken a collective stand against issues like restrictive abortion measures.

“Hopefully, there’s some way in which democracy can serve as a corrective to some policy areas where people feel as if a majority opinion is not represented.”

Read More

Amichai Magen, Marshall Burke, Didi Kuo, Larry Diamond, and Michael McFaul onstage for a panel discussion at Stanford's 2023 Reunion and Homecoming
Commentary

At Reunion Homecoming, FSI Scholars Offer Five Policy Recommendations for the Biden Administration

FSI scholars offer their thoughts on what can be done to address political polarization in the United States, tensions between Taiwan and China, climate change, the war in Ukraine, and the Israel-Hamas war.
At Reunion Homecoming, FSI Scholars Offer Five Policy Recommendations for the Biden Administration
Didi Kuo and Andrew S. Kelly with APSA logo
News

Didi Kuo and Co-author Andrew S. Kelly Awarded 2023 Leonard S. Robins Award for Best Paper on Health Politics and Policy

The award recognizes Kuo and Kelly's paper, “State Capacity and Public Health: California and COVID-19,” as the best paper on health politics and policy presented at the 2022 American Political Science Association (APSA) conference.
Didi Kuo and Co-author Andrew S. Kelly Awarded 2023 Leonard S. Robins Award for Best Paper on Health Politics and Policy
Didi Kuo, FSI Center Fellow
News

Didi Kuo, Expert on Comparative and American Politics, Announced as FSI’s Newest Center Fellow

As a Center Fellow, Kuo will continue to advance her research agenda at the Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law, exploring both the challenges facing American democracy today and their roots.
Didi Kuo, Expert on Comparative and American Politics, Announced as FSI’s Newest Center Fellow
Hero Image
Politics illustration
Image credit: Claire Scully | Claire Scully
All News button
1
Subtitle

A number of factors have led to political parties getting weaker. Stanford political scientist Didi Kuo explains why and what implications this could have for 2024 and beyond.

Paragraphs

Does deliberation produce any lasting effects? “America in One Room” was a national field experiment in which more than 500 randomly selected registered voters were brought from all over the country to deliberate on five major issues facing the country. A pre-post control group was also surveyed on the same questions after the weekend and about a year later. There were significant differences in voting intention and in actual voting behavior a year later among the deliberators compared to the control group. This article accounts for these differences by showing how deliberation stimulated a latent variable of political engagement. If deliberation has lasting effects on political engagement, then it provides a rationale for attempts to scale the deliberative process to much larger numbers. The article considers methods for doing so in the context of the broader debate about mini-publics, isolated spheres of deliberation situated within a largely non-deliberative society.

All Publications button
1
Publication Type
Journal Articles
Publication Date
Journal Publisher
American Political Science Review
Authors
James S. Fishkin
Valentin Bolotnyy
Alice Siu
Paragraphs

This paper demonstrates that, after deliberation, college students showed immense moderation potential and affective depolarization, especially even given their homogeneity as a bloc within American politics and within the overwhelmingly liberal sample for this paper. These findings offer optimism for future research in homogeneous groups through understanding that group polarization, while a very worrisome phenomenon, can be avoided with the right precautionary measures. It is clear that college students are capable of engaging constructively across differences and that deliberation, through Deliberative Polling in particular, can serve to build the capacity to do so.

All Publications button
1
Publication Type
Journal Articles
Publication Date
Journal Publisher
Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning
Authors
Alice Siu
Number
Issue 2
Authors
Rachel Owens
News Type
News
Date
Paragraphs

How did the adoption of civil service reform in the United States affect reelection rates of legislators? In a CDDRL research seminar series talk, Miriam Golden — the Peter Mair Chair in Comparative Politics at the European University Institute and CDDRL visiting scholar — argued that a decline in patronage appointments to state bureaucracies due to civil service legislation increased reelection rates in state legislatures. 

Civil service legislation in the United States began with the federal Pendleton Act in 1883 and continued with a series of staggered reforms at the state level. These reforms mandated that political appointments be made on the basis of merit, thereby limiting the ability of party machines to make patronage appointments to the bureaucracy. By 1987, every state (except for Texas) had adopted these measures. Golden’s work investigates the spillover effects of this legislation on the careers of politicians. 

The phenomenon of the “amateur politician” was prevalent for a good part of US history, especially at the state level. Operating under a patronage system, politicians did not face a strong incentive to seek reelection. However, following the introduction of civil service legislation, parties could no longer rotate their own cadre of loyalists through appointed and elected state offices. As such, the incentive for politicians to seek reelection increased, creating a more professional class of legislators concerned with elevating their own performance in office. 

This theory is consistent with Golden’s analysis of state legislator data covering the period between 1900 and 2016. Using a series of difference in difference estimators, Golden explored the effect of staggered reforms on reelection rates across all 50 state legislatures. Her analysis shows that the said reforms are associated with higher reelection rates. While reelection rates had already begun trending upward over the course of the 20th century, civil service reform coincided with the largest single surge in reelection rates yet observed.  

Golden found that across all the states under study, the rate of legislators seeking reelection and reelection rates track together. The data also suggests that individuals who were in office before the introduction of civil service reforms were driven out at slightly higher rates than those who served after. The trend is consistent with the idea that pre-reform legislators were replaced by a more professional class of politicians.

Read More

Pauline Jones REDS Seminar
News

Kazakhstan’s Public Opinion and Russia’s War Against Ukraine

Professor of Political Science Pauline Jones explored how Russia’s renewed aggression in Ukraine will affect Moscow’s relations with its Eurasian neighbors in a recent REDS Seminar talk, co-sponsored by CDDRL and TEC.
Kazakhstan’s Public Opinion and Russia’s War Against Ukraine
Mona Tajali presents at CDDRL seminar
News

Women and Politics in Iran and Turkey

CDDRL Visiting Scholar Mona Tajali explores the complexities of women’s representation under autocratic governments, using the contexts of Iran and Turkey.
Women and Politics in Iran and Turkey
Anat Admati
News

How Banking Undermines Democracy

In a recent CDDRL research seminar, Anat Admati shared findings from her research on how banking practices can undermine democracy, which are highlighted in the new and expanded edition of her book, "The Bankers’ New Clothes: What is Wrong with Banking and What to Do About It" (Princeton University Press, 2024).
How Banking Undermines Democracy
Hero Image
Miriam Golden presents during a CDDRL research seminar
Miriam Golden presents during a CDDRL research seminar on February 1, 2024. | Rachel Cody Owens
All News button
1
Subtitle

Miriam Golden argues that a decline in patronage appointments to state bureaucracies due to civil service legislation increased reelection rates in state legislatures.

Date Label
-
Claire Adida

Perspective-getting and correcting misconceptions are common interventions to promote inclusion toward outgroups. However, each strategy has limitations. Information corrections yield ambiguous effects, and empathy-based interventions may reproduce the biases they are meant to alleviate. We develop a theoretical framework that clarifies the strengths and weaknesses of each strategy, and offer a design to identify the conditions under which they are most effective. Using three studies on refugee inclusion with nearly 15,000 Americans over three years, we find that information and perspective-getting affect different outcomes. Perspective-getting affects warmth, policy preferences, and behavior, while information leads to factual updating only. We show that combining both interventions produces an additive effect on all outcomes, that neither strategy enhances the other, but that bundling the strategies may prevent backfire effects of information. Our results underscore the promise and limits of information and perspective-getting for promoting inclusion, highlighting the benefits of integrating the two strategies.

ABOUT THE SPEAKER

Claire Adida is Professor of Political Science and Director of the Center for Comparative Immigration Studies at UC San Diego. She is also a faculty affiliate with the UCSD Policy Design and Evaluation Lab, the UCSD Future of Democracy Initiative, the Stanford Immigration Policy Lab, the Evidence in Governance and Politics Groups, and the Center for Effective Global Action (CEGA). Professor Adida uses quantitative methods to study how countries manage new and existing forms of diversity. Her work has appeared in the American Political Science Review, the Quarterly Journal of Political Science, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Comparative Political Studies, the Journal of Experimental Political Science, Public Opinion Quarterly, PLoS ONE, and several other very prestigious outlets. She has written two books on immigrant exclusion, her 2010 Cambridge University Press book on Immigrant Exclusion and Insecurity in Africa and her 2016 Harvard University Press co-authored book on Why Muslim Integration Fails in Christian-Heritage Societies. Professor Adida’s work has been funded by the National Science Foundation, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Hellman Foundation, and the Evidence in Governance and Politics Group. Professor Adida serves on the editorial board of the American Political Science Review and is an Associate Editor at the Journal of Experimental Political Science. She received her PhD in political science from Stanford University in 2010.

William J. Perry Conference Room (Encina Hall, 2nd floor, 616 Jane Stanford Way, Stanford)

Open to Stanford-affiliates only

Claire Adida
Paragraphs

In April 2023, New America, the Center for Ballot Freedom, Protect Democracy, Lyceum Labs, and Stanford University’s Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law convened a conference at Stanford University on the future of political parties in the United States. The conference, titled “More Parties, Better Parties,” focused on the idea that U.S. democracy would benefit from stronger and more representative parties and that essential to that vision was opportunity for more parties beyond the current party duopoly to emerge. The essays in this collection, derived from papers prepared for the conference, trace the following argument: Parties are essential institutions in a democracy; there is an unjustified hostility to parties in much American political discourse; and fluid and overlapping coalitions of a multiparty system can improve governance and confidence. We then look at the promise of fusion voting, a practice once widespread and now prohibited in most states, which could allow new parties to gain a foothold by cross-endorsing candidates from established parties.

All Publications button
1
Publication Type
Reports
Publication Date
Subtitle

Essay within "The Realistic Promise of Multiparty Democracy in the United States," a political reform report from New America.

Journal Publisher
New America
Authors
Didi Kuo
Authors
Nora Sulots
News Type
News
Date
Paragraphs

In an era marked by profound societal transformations, identity, democracy, and justice have become central to the discourse on shaping fair and inclusive societies. Recognizing the imperative to delve into these complex issues, political scientist Hakeem Jefferson is launching a new research initiative at Stanford University’s Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law. The Program on Identity, Democracy, and Justice (IDJ) serves as a nexus for researchers committed to unraveling the multifaceted dimensions of identity and informing tangible steps toward a more equitable future.

Against the backdrop of diverse topics such as racial and ethnic identity, gender and sexuality, religion, class, and citizenship, the IDJ program emerges as a hub for interdisciplinary collaboration. Its reach extends beyond academic circles, bringing together researchers and organizations who are thinking about how to build fairer, more inclusive societies.

“Hakeem's work on race and politics in America is an important part of the Center's expanding work on the quality of American democracy,” shared Kathryn Stoner, Mosbacher Director of CDDRL. “We are thrilled to launch this new program on such a crucial issue at CDDRL.”

"This program is the embodiment of years of hard work by Hakeem Jefferson in building an innovative research agenda and a vibrant scholarly community attentive to pressing questions on struggles for recognition, inclusion, and social justice,” added Hesham Sallam, the Center’s Associate Director for Research. “I look forward to seeing the program flourish and grow while contributing to intellectual life at CDDRL and Stanford at large."

This program is the embodiment of years of hard work by Hakeem Jefferson in building an innovative research agenda and a vibrant scholarly community attentive to pressing questions on struggles for recognition, inclusion, and social justice.
Hesham Sallam
Associate Director for Research, CDDRL

On January 11, 2024, IDJ will host its inaugural event, titled Multiracial Democracy and its Future in the United States, with Harvard University professors Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt. Levitsky and Ziblatt are the New York Times best-selling authors of How Democracies Die and will discuss their newest book, Tyranny of the Minority: Why American Democracy Reached the Breaking Point (Crown, 2023). In a moderated conversation with Professors Hakeem Jefferson and Jake Grumbach (UC Berkeley) and an audience Q&A, Levitsky and Ziblatt will offer a framework for understanding the current crisis in America's democracy. You can learn more about the event and register to attend here.

In the following Q&A, Hakeem Jefferson, an assistant professor of political science in the School of Humanities and Sciences, shares more about the motivations and objectives of the new IDJ program and the transformative potential of identity-focused research.



What motivated the establishment of the Program on Identity, Democracy, and Justice (IDJ) at CDDRL, and what specific gaps or challenges in existing research does it aim to address?


As a scholar of race and politics, it has always been clear to me that we cannot understand threats to democracy or the promise of democracy without engaging issues of race and identity more broadly. I am excited to launch this program at CDDRL because I think we have a real opportunity to bring together scholars, practitioners, and community members concerned with creating a society of political and social equals. At IDJ, we hope to expand people’s understanding of what it means to care about democracy and what the study of democracy looks like. For us, these questions necessitate a focus on difference, a focus on inequality, and a concern with democracy beyond the ballot box. To be sure, we will engage questions related to elections and the health of electoral democracy, but we also want to make the strong case in the research we platform and in the conversations and workshops we convene that being concerned with democracy means thinking quite carefully about how societies are stratified, how power is distributed, and how justice is achieved.

We want to make the strong case in the research we platform and in the conversations and workshops we convene that being concerned with democracy means thinking quite carefully about how societies are stratified, how power is distributed, and how justice is achieved.
Hakeem Jefferson
Assistant Professor of Political Science, Faculty Director of IDJ

What are some of the program's key goals and objectives?


I want to invite folks who study the program themes to be in community with one another. The hope is that these interactions will lead to more thoughtful scholarship and initiatives. We want people to share early-stage ideas, make connections with like-minded collaborators, sharpen later-stage research, and broaden their aims and interests through consuming the work hosted by the program. We want to keep researchers aware of practitioners, especially at the local level, who are working to promote democratic principles and, in parallel, keep those organizations abreast of findings relevant to our shared interest in a healthier democracy.

How does the IDJ program approach the study of identity-related issues, and what makes it distinctive compared to existing research programs?


IDJ is ideas first. Different backgrounds, training, and scholarly dispositions mean that we think about identity-related questions in different ways. IDJ seeks to bring our attention to how we are engaging the same objective — equitable democracies — whether we are concerned with different identities, different contexts, or different sorts of evidence. By pursuing common insights, IDJ aims to produce work that is interesting to a broad audience.

As the IDJ program unfolds, how do you envision its role in shaping public discourse and influencing policies related to identity, democracy, and justice, both locally and globally?


Throughout my career — and since I was a young boy in South Carolina — I have engaged in public conversations about issues of justice. In recent years, I have written extensively for public audiences about topics ranging from the January 6 insurrection and whiteness to the crisis facing multiracial democracy in the United States. As I launch the IDJ program, this commitment to public engagement remains at the heart of what we plan to do. From writing Op-Eds to engaging directly with those working on the ground to safeguard democracy, we hope to be a public-facing program whose stakeholders include those far beyond our Stanford community.

Read More

Hoover Tower at sunset.
News

New Initiative Examines Stanford’s Role in Advancing Democracy

Upon completing the inventory phase of its research, the effort released a list of the courses, research and engagement activities that it feels advance democracy. The next phase involves holding deliberations with the larger Stanford community.
New Initiative Examines Stanford’s Role in Advancing Democracy
Voting booth
Commentary

‘Democracy is on the ballot’: Professors react to midterm election results

As the results of the 2022 Midterm Elections are coming in, Stanford Professors Larry Diamond, Hakeem Jefferson, and Bruce Cain provided their insights on Tuesday night to The Daily.
‘Democracy is on the ballot’: Professors react to midterm election results
Hakeem Jefferson
News

Welcoming Hakeem Jefferson to CDDRL

Jefferson, an assistant professor of political science at Stanford University, will join the center as a faculty affiliate.
Welcoming Hakeem Jefferson to CDDRL
Hero Image
View of the huge crowd from the Lincoln Memorial to the Washington Monument, during the March on Washington
View of the huge crowd from the Lincoln Memorial to the Washington Monument during the March on Washington. | Warren K. Leffler / U.S. Library of Congress
All News button
1
Subtitle

Led by Professor Hakeem Jefferson, the program housed at the Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law will advance innovative research on the multifaceted dimensions of identity and their role in democratic development, struggles for recognition, social justice, and inclusion.

Paragraphs
Cover of Under Fire and Under Water by Bruce Cain

Epic wildfire. Devastating drought. Cataclysmic flooding. Extreme weather in the wake of climate change threatens to turn the American West into a region hostile to human habitation—a “Great American Desert,” as early US explorers once mislabeled it. As Bruce E. Cain suggests in this timely book, the unique complex of politics, technology, and logistics that once won the West must be rethought and reconfigured to win it anew in the face of a widespread accelerating threat.

The challenges posed by increasingly extreme weather in the West are complicated by the region’s history, the deliberate fractiousness of the American political system, and the idiosyncrasies of human behavior—all of which Cain considers, separately and together, in Under Fire and Under Water. He analyzes how, in spite of coastal flooding and spreading wildfires, people continue to move into, and even rebuild in, risky areas; how local communities are slow to take protective measures; and how individual beliefs, past adaptation practices and infrastructure, and complex governing arrangements across jurisdictions combine to flout real progress. Driving Cain’s analysis is the conviction that understanding the habits and politics that lead to procrastination and obstruction is critical to finding solutions and making necessary adaptations to the changing climate.

As a detailed look at the rising stakes and urgency of the various interconnected issues, this book is an important first step toward that understanding—and consequently toward the rethinking and reengineering that will allow people to live sustainably in the American West under the conditions of future global warming.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR


Bruce E. Cain is Professor of Political Science at Stanford University and Director of the Bill Lane Center for the American West. He is the author of Democracy More or Less: America’s Political Reform Quandary and coauthor of Ethnic Context, Race Relations, and California Politics.

All Publications button
1
Publication Type
Books
Publication Date
Subtitle

Wildfire, Flooding, and the Fight for Climate Resilience in the American West

Authors
Bruce E. Cain
Book Publisher
University of Oklahoma Press
Subscribe to United States