During the 1940s, four US states established a new form of social insurance, Temporary Disability Insurance (TDI), meant to provide wage replacement to breadwinners unable to work due to nonoccupational illness or injury. The first TDI state, Rhode Island, did not initially exclude coverage of pregnancy-related disabilities, threatening the health of the TDI trust fund. Administrators and lawmakers then sought to reduce or eliminate the pregnancy-related disability benefit on the grounds that pregnancy and related conditions were not “real” disabilities. Subsequently, Rhode Island administrators advised lawmakers in California, New Jersey, and New York to exclude pregnancy-related disabilities from coverage. The breadwinner gender ideology animating New Deal social welfare programs intersected with gendered ideas of disability, creating a form of social insurance that excluded or marginalized pregnancy-related disability and further circumscribed women’s social citizenship.

Common examples of governance policies include regulations of lobbying, campaign-finance restrictions, and term limitations. Although the public generally favors these good-government reforms, the laws often restrict the autonomy of political elites. The histories of lobby reform in New York, Georgia, and Michigan illustrate how governance policies might be adopted despite elite opposition. In the states, initial reform efforts came about due to agenda-setting events or policy entrepreneurs. Although legislators adopted lobby reforms, they preferred transparency to other lobby reforms given its limited effect on mutualistic relationships. Initial lobby laws required only disclosure and did not restrict legislator–lobbyist interactions much. Only with the advent of additional events and entrepreneurs were the initial laws strengthened to limit interactions. The histories of reform imply that narratives of policy innovation or diffusion may be complicated somewhat by elite interests and that governance policies, once adopted, may have a unique immunity from repeal.

I argue that health insurance emerged as an important aspect of Nixon’s domestic policy agenda as a result of “policy escalation.” By policy escalation, I mean a cascading line of reasoning that causes policy makers focused on one apparently discrete issue to formulate approaches for dealing with other interconnecting policy areas. Policy escalation serves as an internal agenda-setting mechanism: as policy makers contemplate policy changes, they may attempt to imagine the ways in which change will affect the rationale, fiscal position, and execution of programs in other policy areas. In the case of health insurance, the Nixon administration’s proposal for replacing Aid to Families with Dependent Children with a guaranteed minimum income forced policy makers to consider how the new program would interact with the existing Medicaid program. Consideration of this question ultimately led them to formulate an approach to overhauling the nation’s entire health insurance system.

Christian-democratic parties not only constituted the most successful political force in much of Western Europe during most of the twentieth century; their attitudes toward solidaristic welfare reform have arguably also been more diverse than have those of most other major political groupings during this period. Whereas existing studies have mostly attributed this variation to electoral or strategic considerations, this article emphasizes the importance of interest group involvement. It analyzes and compares postwar old-age pension reform in three important Christian-democratic-ruled societies, Belgium, Germany, and the Netherlands, and shows how the very different attitudes of the main Christian-democratic parties toward solidaristic welfare reform in these countries related to the strength and unity of the Christian-democratic labor union movements there.

Terrorists attacked the United States diplomatic compound and adjoining CIA Annex in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11, 2012. Despite repeated warnings from officials about the security risks in Tripoli and Benghazi, we argue that intelligence, security, and organizational deficiencies within the Department of State created vulnerabilities contributing to the deaths of four Americans, including Ambassador Christopher Stephens. Scholarly assessment of these failures has been precluded as a consequence of the incident’s use in partisan attacks. Republicans in Congress used investigations into the incident to damage presumed 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton, who was then President Obama’s secretary of state. Setting aside political considerations and examining the failures that led to the attack is important to protect diplomatic personnel abroad in the future.