The field of disability studies is growing in size, sophistication, and sweep, with its own research association and a few interdisciplinary programs scattered around the country. As with its predecessors and to some extent models, black studies and womens’ studies, disability studies is partly concerned with taking the perspective of a previously marginalized subject seriously. But besides uncovering what has been ignored, researchers in disability studies, perhaps even more than their colleagues in ethnic and gender studies, must confront and recast what has been studied before: whole fields of research that have developed particular ways of seeing people with disabilities.

Although the cover design of the book emphasizes the (perceived) phrase “identity politics,” the true title of the text broadly documents the journey of the lesbian and gay movements through two important components represented by this phrase. The journey from struggles for social sexual identity to struggles for social political rights within the liberal democratic tradition marks a maturation of the movements. While there have been many works dealing with the former (sexual identity), this book is a timely assessment of the current strategies used by a decentralized movement in an attempt to gain equal political rights. In brief, it documents and evaluates the progress and potential of the lesbian and gay movements as social-political forces for change.

The nineteenth-century, Protestant-led common school movement against Catholic schools, the campaign against foreign language instruction in public schools, and other xenophobic efforts to “Americanize” public education in the early twentieth century provide the historical background for Rob Reich's discussion of contemporary multicultural education in the United States. His goal is to construct a liberal theory of multicultural education that hangs together philosophically and makes practical sense in a pluralistic society whose professed liberal democratic principles are belied by this history of nativism and discrimination.

Within the past five years, the scholarly literature on the U.S. Senate has been immeasurably enriched by the appearance of a half-dozen books that are noteworthy, not merely for the quality of the research involved but for the perspective they share. Directing their attention to different features of the institution, all emphasize what is truly distinctive about the Senate. In spite of powerful evidence that the hardedged partisanship that has long been a feature of the House has made strong inroads in the Senate, and in the face of evidence provided by Barbara Sinclair's Unorthodox Lawmaking (1997) and others that Senate leadership, at least in the postcommittee phase of legislation, has gotten more muscular in the manner of party leaders in the House, the two chambers are in no danger of becoming indistinguishable one from the other anytime soon.

As its title suggests, this study argues that U.S. immigration policy has been fundamentally shaped by national sovereignty. In so doing, Cheryl Shanks usefully reminds us that immigration is one of those policy domains—like foreign policy—that is inescapably and fundamentally regime shaping. At the same time, she seeks to demonstrate that “to preserve or enhance sovereignty is a policy choice” (p. 2), albeit one whose determinants change over time. Indeed, the bulk of this work is an historical analysis of the Congressional Record, scrutinizing how U.S. sovereignty has been conceived of differently over the last century and how this has influenced immigration policy. This effort leads Shanks to the provocative conclusion that “immigration policy has become more restrictive as trade policy has become less protectionist” (p. 253); more specifically, that as we have become less concerned with racial and ideological admission criteria, we have become more concerned with total numbers of immigrants and their “quality,” in terms of human capital. For Shanks, the point is that the tension between maintaining sovereignty and fostering involvement in an open and dynamic world economy is central to understanding contemporary immigration policy.

Of all the major issues on the American policy agenda, the media and the public arguably assign the most responsibility to presidents for the condition of the economy. It is entirely another question whether or not presidents can, in meaningful ways, directly affect markets in a system of separated institutions sharing power, and with the presence of a powerful and independent decision-making body (the Federal Reserve Board). Yet given the responsibility (blame or credit) assigned to presidents for the macroeconomy, it is important for scholars to understand their activities and efforts on the economy. In this latest book from the emerging presidency series edited by James Pfiffner, Constantine Spiliotes dives into this vital matter by developing and testing a theoretical framework of presidential decision making on the economy.