Would the Islamic State ever renounce violence? In the current political climate, the question seems preposterous. Yet, at the height of a terrorist campaign against tourists in Egypt during the 1990s, nobody expected that the group behind the attacks would issue and adhere to a nonviolence initiative. What drives groups to shift between nonviolence and violence? When do opposition groups move away from armed action, and why do some organizations renounce violence permanently, whereas others refrain temporarily? In The Violence Pendulum, Ioana Emy Matesan offers a theory of tactical change that explains both escalation and de-escalation in order to answer these questions. Matesan's analysis traces the historical evolution of four Islamist groups: the Muslim Brotherhood and al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya in Egypt, and Darul Islam and Jemaah Islamiyah in Indonesia. Drawing from archival materials, interviews, and reports, she focuses on turning points in each organization. Ultimately, she finds that Islamist groups alter their tactics in response to the perceived need for activism, shifts in the cost of violent versus nonviolent resistance, and internal or external pressures on the organization. Groups turn to violence when grievances escalate, violent resistance is feasible and publicly tolerated, and there are internal or external pressures to act. In turn, groups renounce armed action when violence costs them too much, disillusionment eclipses the perceived need for continued activism, and leaders are willing to rethink the tactics and strategies of the group. By uncovering the reasons for escalation and de-escalation across a range of political environments, The Violence Pendulum reshapes our understanding of how decisions are made--and how nonviolence can be achieved--in armed groups.

As new presidential administrations come into power, they each bring their own approach to foreign policy. No grand strategy, however, is going to be completely novel. New administrations never start with a blank slate, so it is always possible to see similarities between an administration and its predecessors. Conversely, since each administration faces novel problems and operates in a unique context, no foreign policy strategy is going to be an exact replica of its predecessors. In American Pendulum, Christopher Hemmer examines America's grand strategic choices between 1914 and 2014 using four recurring debates in American foreign policy as lenses. First, how should the United States balance the trade-offs between working alone versus working with other states and international organizations? Second, what is the proper place of American values in foreign policy? Third, where does the strategic perimeter of the United States lie? And fourth, is time on the side of the United States or of its enemies?Offering new readings of debates within the Wilson, Truman, Nixon, Bush, and Obama administrations, Hemmer asserts that heated debates, disagreements, and even confusions over U.S. grand strategy are not only normal but also beneficial. He challenges the claim that uncertainties or inconsistences about the nation's role in the world or approach to security issues betray strategic confusion or the absence of a grand strategy. American foreign policy, he states, is most in danger not when debates are at their most pointed but when the weight of opinion crushes dissent. As the United States looks ahead to an increasingly multipolar world with increasing complicated security issues, Hemmer concludes, developing an effective grand strategy requires ongoing contestation and compromises between competing visions and policies.

In Breaking the Pendulum, Philip Goodman, Joshua Page, and Michelle Phelps debunk the pendulum model of American criminal justice, arguing that it distorts how and why punishment changes. From the birth of the penitentiary through recent reforms, the authors show how the struggle of players in the penal field shapes punishment.

Provocative and timely: a pioneering neurocriminologist introduces the latest biological research into the causes of--and potential cures for--criminal behavior. With an 8-page full-color insert, and black-and-white illustrations throughout.

A brutal, bloody, and at times hopeful history of the vote; a primer on the opponents fighting to take it away; and a playbook for how we can save our democracy before it’s too late—from the former U.S. Attorney General on the front lines of this fight Voting is our most important right as Americans—“the right that protects all the others,” as Lyndon Johnson famously said when he signed the Voting Rights Act—but it’s also the one most violently contested throughout U.S. history. Since the gutting of the act in the landmark Shelby County v. Holder case in 2013, many states have passed laws restricting the vote. After the 2020 election, President Trump’s effort to overturn the vote has evolved into a slow-motion coup, with many Republicans launching an all-out assault on our democracy. The vote seems to be in unprecedented peril. But the peril is not at all unprecedented. America is a fragile democracy, Eric Holder argues, whose citizens have only had unfettered access to the ballot since the 1960s. He takes readers through three dramatic stories of how the vote was won: first by white men, through violence and insurrection; then by white women, through protests and mass imprisonments; and finally by African Americans, in the face of lynchings and terrorism. Next, he dives into how the vote has been stripped away since Shelby—a case in which Holder was one of the parties. He ends with visionary chapters on how we can reverse this tide of voter suppression and become a true democracy where every voice is heard and every vote is counted. Full of surprising history, intensive analysis, and actionable plans for the future, this is a powerful primer on our most urgent political struggle from one of the country's leading advocates.