Suchergebnisse

Social media has exploded in importance and power over a very short period of time, faster than people and policy can keep up. As a result, social media has been a battleground of business and political interests that have changed and adapted so quickly that policy makers are unable to maintain the pace. This veritable wild west of communication has led to a variety of issues with no clear solutions, and even as ideas are put forward these are quickly made irrelevant by the next innovation or strategy that inevitably pops up. These issues range from social media companies generating ideological bubbles in their pursuit of building a superior product, fringe political forces adapting and making use of the internet in their struggles to both be heard and to stop their ideological rivals from being heard, to the government trying to adapt law and policy to new Constitutional issues that are arising. This paper will examine these issues and consider their complexities, while suggesting and identifying flexible solutions that recognize the ever-changing nature of the question at hand.

Social media has exploded in importance and power over a very short period of time, faster than people and policy can keep up. As a result, social media has been a battleground of business and political interests that have changed and adapted so quickly that policy makers are unable to maintain the pace. This veritable wild west of communication has led to a variety of issues with no clear solutions, and even as ideas are put forward these are quickly made irrelevant by the next innovation or strategy that inevitably pops up. These issues range from social media companies generating ideological bubbles in their pursuit of building a superior product, fringe political forces adapting and making use of the internet in their struggles to both be heard and to stop their ideological rivals from being heard, to the government trying to adapt law and policy to new Constitutional issues that are arising. This paper will examine these issues and consider their complexities, while suggesting and identifying flexible solutions that recognize the ever-changing nature of the question at hand.

Social media has exploded in importance and power over a very short period of time, faster than people and policy can keep up. As a result, social media has been a battleground of business and political interests that have changed and adapted so quickly that policy makers are unable to maintain the pace. This veritable wild west of communication has led to a variety of issues with no clear solutions, and even as ideas are put forward these are quickly made irrelevant by the next innovation or strategy that inevitably pops up. These issues range from social media companies generating ideological bubbles in their pursuit of building a superior product, fringe political forces adapting and making use of the internet in their struggles to both be heard and to stop their ideological rivals from being heard, to the government trying to adapt law and policy to new Constitutional issues that are arising. This paper will examine these issues and consider their complexities, while suggesting and identifying flexible solutions that recognize the ever-changing nature of the question at hand.

The objective of this paper is to explain populist attitudes that are prevailing in a number of European democracies. Populist attitudes expectedly lead to social protests and populist votes. We capture the populist wave by relying not on voting behavior but rather on values that are traditionally viewed as populist values, such as distrust of institutions and neighbors, rejection of migrations and strong preferences for law and order. Our study covers the period 2004 to 2018 and 25 European countries for which we match aggregated indicators of populist values and social polarization computed from ESS and SILC survey micro-data, respectively. We find that social polarization, along with other factors, can explain populist attitudes. We also observe that both populist attitudes and polarization vary across countries much more than over time, with the exception of authoritarian values which appear positively correlated with social polarization, particularly among baby-boomers and younger cohorts.

Cover -- Title Page -- Copyright Page -- Table of Contents -- Acknowledgments -- Introduction -- Part One: A Historical Perspective on Today's Tribal Politics -- Chapter 1. The Rise of Tribal Politics in Historical Perspective -- Chapter 2. Incremental Liberalism or Prolonged Partisan Warfare -- Part Two: Political Institutions and Government Performance -- Chapter 3. Legislative Stalemate in Postwar America, 1947-2018 -- Chapter 4. Challenges of Measuring Party Unity in a Polarized Era: The 115th Congress -- Chapter 5. Polarization and the Changing American Constitutional System: The Case of Federalism -- Part Three: Public Opinion and Political Behavior in a Polarized Era -- Chapter 6. She's Not My Governor: Negative Partisanship and Trust in Government in the American States -- Chapter 7. Gender Attitudes and American Public Opinion in the Trump Era -- Chapter 8. Curating the News: How Social Media Facilitates Selective Exposure -- Chapter 9. Charge and Retreat: Asymmetric Patterns of Political Engagement among Liberals and Conservatives -- Part Four: Ideas for Reform -- Chapter 10. Politics Industry Theory -- Chapter 11. Spolier Alert: Why Americans' Desires for a Third Party Are Unlikely to Come True -- Part Five: Donald Trump and the Evolution of American Politics -- Chapter 12. Our "Undivided Support": Donald Trump, the Republican Party, and Executive-Centered Partisanship -- Conslusion: Reflections and Paths Forward -- About the Contributors -- Index -- Back Cover.

This text provides a unified spatial model of legislative elections, parties, and roll call voting to address three primary questions: why do legislators adopt extreme positions, how do they win given their extremism, and what role do parties play in promoting polarization? Justin Buchler links spatial models of elections to spatial models of roll call voting in the legislature, and suggests that the key to understanding polarization is to reverse the order of conventional models and place the legislative session before the election because legislators adopt positions in the policy space, extreme or otherwise, through the incremental process of casting roll call votes.

The objective of this paper is to explain populist attitudes that are prevailing in a number of European democracies. Populist attitudes expectedly lead to social protests and populist votes. We capture the populist wave by relying not on voting behavior but rather on values that are traditionally viewed as populist values, such as distrust of institutions and neighbors, rejection of migrations and strong preferences for law and order. Our study covers the period 2004 to 2018 and 25 European countries for which we match aggregated indicators of populist values and social polarization computed from ESS and SILC survey micro-data, respectively. We find that social polarization, along with other factors, can explain populist attitudes. We also observe that both populist attitudes and polarization vary across countries much more than over time, with the exception of authoritarian values which appear positively correlated with social polarization, particularly among baby-boomers and younger cohorts. ; info:eu-repo/semantics/published

Understanding polarization / David R. Brubaker -- Leadership and polarization / David R. Brubaker -- Communicating across the divide / Everett N. Brubaker -- Trauma, polarization, and connection / Carolyn E. Yoder -- Weathering polarization with resilience / Teresa J. Haase -- Transforming polarization / David R. Brubaker -- Love that transforms / David R. Brubaker.

A test of two competing theories of status polarization of social welfare attitudes: (1) a social-psychological approach that sees status polarization as a function of identification with social groups; & (2) an economic theory that sees policy preferences as a function of the individual's expected utility from various policies. Center for Political Studies (U of Michigan, Ann Arbor) data from the years 1956-1984 reveal that the utility maximizing hypothesis has much more explanatory power for the middle & late 1970s. SC identification, on the other hand, rivals utility maximization as an expression of policy preferences during the years 1956-1964 & shows a slight resurgence in 1982 & 1984. These results suggest little prospect for a revival of the New Deal party coalitions, barring strong political leadership that defines issues in class terms & polarizes the electorate. 5 Tables, 43 References. Modified HA

This book provides a concise and engaging analysis of the particularly unusual 2020 election year in the USA. The political science perspective illuminates societal tensions in the context of the Corona pandemic and elaborates election-deciding discourses. Larger socio-political trends such as ideological polarisation are addressed as well as the different campaign strategies of the two parties. In addition, the book offers insights into the election results of this landmark presidential election for American society and for the development of its democracy. The final evaluation of the resulting implications for transatlantic relations rounds off the book. The authors Dr. Christiane Lemke is Professor of Political Science at Leibniz Universität Hannover, specialising in international relations and US politics. Jakob Wiedekind is a research assistant and doctoral student in the "International Relations" department at the Institute of Political Science at Leibniz Universität Hannover.

The objective of this article is to explain populist attitudes that are prevailing in a number of European democracies. Populist attitudes usually lead to social protests and populist votes. We capture the populist wave by relying on values that are traditionally viewed as populist—such as distrust of institutions and neighbors, rejection of migrations, and strong preferences for law and order—rather than on voting behavior. Our study covers the period 2004–2018 and 25 European countries for which we match aggregated indicators of populist values and social polarization based on ESS and SILC survey micro-data. We show that social polarization varies dramatically across European regions, but at the same time, some convergence is observed. Our estimations confirm, in most cases, a positive and statistically significant relation between social polarization and populist attitudes. (JEL codes: D63 and I30)