Suchergebnisse

AbstractThe simplification of the political landscape in terms of 'left' and 'right' is common across most democracies, if not most of the world. This would suggest that the terminology has a shared core meaning in different political contexts. While no such stable element has been established in the political science literature, various potential dividing lines that may form the core meaning have been proposed. This paper is the most extensive comparative study to our knowledge that evaluates these proposals by studying responses to open‐ended survey questions on what voters associate with the terms 'left' and 'right'. Data from eight different democratic political contexts are analysed using quantitative text analysis methods. The results demonstrate varied support for the different explanations. Evidence is found in all contexts for the hypothesis that acceptance of inequality divides left‐ from right‐wing politics. That the left‐right dimension is a divide between those for and against government intervention in the economy, or between those for change and against change, is mostly congruent with our findings. We find less evidence that either secular/religious divisions, or different conceptions of equality, consistently differentiate left from right. Our findings point towards the existence of a context‐independent underlying dimension of left‐right competition.

Surveys various attempts to move beyond the categories of Left & Right in making distinctions in political orientations among social groups. It is argued that the work of such scholars as Giovanni Sartori (1982), Norberto Bobbio (1983), & Dino Confrancesco (1984) ends in essentializing these categories rather than creating viable alternatives. Moreover, to the extent that these categorizations function as ideal-types within theoretical constructs wholly devised by the authors, they do not correspond to empirical reality. These authors therefore risk losing themselves within the many varieties of Right & Left that they inevitably observe as they turn to empirical questions. A call is made to overcome rigid metapolitical frameworks devised in the nineteenth century that do not capture the political reality of the late twentieth century. D. M. Smith

"In The Great Debate Yuval Levin explores the origins of the familiar left/right divide in American politics by examining the views of the men who best represent each side of that debate: Edmund Burke and Thomas Paine. In a groundbreaking exploration of the origins of our political order, Levin shows that our political divide did not originate (as many historians argue) in the French Revolution, but rather in the Anglo-American debate about that revolution. Burke and Paine were both utterly fascinating figures--active in politics, versed in philosophy, and two of the best, most effective and powerful political writers and polemicists in the history of the English speaking world. Levin sets the work of these two men against the dramatic history of their era and shows how they mixed theory and practice to advance their very different notions of liberty, equality, nature, history, reason, revolution, and reform. Paine believed in radical change and saw the American and French Revolutions as catalysts for creating a new society; Burke believed in a significantly more gradual approach with each generation acting merely as part of a long chain of history. These differing approaches to revolution and reform created a division that continues to shape our current political discourse--including issues ranging from gun control and abortion to welfare and economic reform"--

SUMMARYThe article tries to find out whether the political composition of government in twelve Western European countries had any effect on real growth, unemployment and inflation. The method chosen is to combine year after year the countries in 'Left', 'Right' and (left and right) coalition groups and then to compare the group results over the period 1960‐1984. In the period of high growth and full employment political composition plays a minor part. After 1970 the picture changes: the left group (left and left coalition governments) exhibits consistently higher growth and lower unemployment rates than the right group. With regard to inflation the picture is less clear. There is an indication that coalitions have generally fared better than either 'pure' left or 'pure' right governments.

As theoretical models of policy processes have become more ambitious, scholars have been relying more and more frequently on the policy positions of the relevant actors. Different methods are feasible in deriving these policy positions, but few have been applied to the Swiss parties. In this article, we offer estimates of policy positions for the Swiss political parties using various methods. Our main goal is to assess changes over time of these positions. On comparing the estimates obtained by the various methods, we offer insights on which estimates are preferable and in what contexts. Given the particular characteristics of the Swiss political system, namely a federal country with a non-parliamentary system of government, we also assess the degree to which the Swiss federal parties are unified.

AbstractIn this article the author proposes a schema conception of belief system structure, and employs confirmatory factor analysis, to investigate the connections between Left/Right Orientation and a range of policy-centred and operation-of-government attitudes. Contrary to the results of some earlier research, this study finds that Canadians' morality beliefs are moderately consistent with their evaluations of left and right. The examination includes education and class differences in the ideological integration and range of political belief systems. The major difference between workers and other classes is congruent with the notion that workers possess a dualistic political consciousness.