Suchergebnisse

Many changes, both internally & externally, have been felt during the 20 yrs that a Democratic majority governed the US. Since Eisenhower's election in 1952 & re-election in 1956, it would be interesting to know to what extent the Republican majority can be considered to be stable. In 1956, the Democrats won the elections, the presidential party having failed, for the 1st time since 1848, to carry a majority to Congress in a Presidential election yr. PO polls show that there are 3 Democrats for every 2 Republicans. Stevenson was defeated because the Republicans were better organized than the Democrats, many of whom voted for Eisenhower or did not vote at all. Finally, the Republicans control almost all of the press & the media of propaganda & information, & the SS of Republicanism is more a matter of prestige than one of soc pressure. The Wc, while still almost exclusively Democratic in 1948, is becoming more & more Republican, while the moderates are gradually drifting from the Democratic party. Cath's, Ru voters, & individuals living in small towns are tending toward Republicanism, while the younger age groups of the New Deal generation are remaining faithful to the Democratic Party. The qualities of the candidates in 1952 & 1956 certainly played a role in the division of the votes, but if the prestige of the General was a factor, Stevenson also had traits in his favor. Domestic issues, especially the Negro question, had their influence, but foreign affairs is the area in which the diff's in the parties is most apparent. Tr by J. A. Broussard from IPSA.

In Dec 1953 after Krushchev criticized the Soviet Press, a campaign was begun in the USSR which showed that the newspapers were generally offering nothing more to the reader than official communiques & were not sources of news. The reasons for this change in attitude toward the press were due, on the one hand, to the fact that the diminishing interest in the press was reducing its effectiveness as a weapon of the Party, & on the other, to the desire that the process of liberalization, thought to be inevitable, should be conducted within the framework of the party & not outside of it. Despite important developments in the way of news, the Party never relinquished control over the press, a fact which became obvious when no mention was made of the happenings in Hungary until long after those events had occurred. 2 obstacles oppose themselves to the development of newsworthy characteristics in the Soviet Press: all news must necessarily contribute to the improvement of the reader; the press was created in connection with admin've agencies, pol'al & union groups, & remains extremely specialized. This specialization led inevitably to uniformity since, outside its own field, the newspapers merely quoted the same articles verbatim. The reform took place while stating that neither the structure nor the objectives of the press needed to be modified. The change dealt mainly with those things which might be considered informative or dangerous. A certain number of problems were dealt with in the area of internat & internal problems & objectivity was increased. Furthermore, writers were no longer content to simply supply eulogies on the activities of their enterprises but engaged in criticisms. Finally, the number of letters from readers increased, & the tone of criticism became more apparent. An effort to improve the presentation of news & to introduce a wider variety of such news has been attempted, but so far is a long way from being greatly effective. Tr by J. A. Broussard from IPSA.

"Post-war expansion of the welfare state is one of the most central changes in Norwegian society
today and is often a topic in public debate. When certain conceptions about the welfare state
are developed and they are no longer based on systematic analyses but rather ideas and attitudes,
they can turn into myths. However, to be termed myths requires documentation, and
here social research plays an important role. This book rejects and elaborates central myths in
the public debate about the welfare state. The book is structured as an anthology, written by six
welfare sociologists at the University of Bergen. The first article introduces the history of The
Myth of the Welfare State, a book published by Pax in 1970, then revised a few years later, and
with a follow-up version in 1995, 25 years after that. The book became a flaming light within
the social policy debate, because it criticized the welfare state for not solving the problem of
poverty. Although this problem, relatively seen, is reduced, the following five articles show
that, within the framework of the welfare state, there is room for new important critical discussions.
One myth focuses on the idea that a combination of a comprehensive state and an active
civil society with much voluntary work is not possible. Another concerns the idea that welfare
results in dependency. A third is about the "Elder Boom". A fourth concerns single mothers
and assumes that these unlawfully try to get access to welfare. And finally, the last discusses
the ideas that crime should result in punishment and "prison pain". Together, the articles are a
contribution to make the debate about the welfare state richer and more dynamic." - "Utbyggingen av velferdsstaten i etterkrigstiden hører til en av de mest sentrale endringer i
det norske samfunn, og er ofte et tema i den offentlige debatt. Når bestemte forestillinger om
velferdsstaten utvikles og de ikke lenger bygger på systematiske analyser, men på ideer og
holdninger, kan de bli til myter. At det er snakk om myter, må imidlertid dokumenteres, og her
spiller samfunnsforskningen en viktig rolle. Denne boken tilbakeviser og nyanserer sentrale
myter i den offentlige debatt om velferdsstaten. Boken er bygget opp som en antologi, skrevet
av seks velferdssosiologer fra Universitetet i Bergen. Den første artikkelen gir en innføring
i historien om Myten om velferdsstaten, en bok utgitt av Pax i 1970, siden revidert noen år
etter og med en oppfølger i 1995, 25 år etter. Boken ble en brannfakkel i den sosialpolitiske
debatt, fordi den kritiserte velferdsstaten for ikke å håndtere fattigdomsproblemet. Selv om
dette problemet, relativt sett, er redusert, utgjør de etterfølgende artiklene om fem aktuelle
velferdsmyter en argumentasjon for, at det, innenfor velferdsstatens rammer, er rom for nye
viktige kritiske diskusjoner. Én myte handler om at en sterk stat ikke kan forenes med et aktivt
samfunn med stor grad av frivillighet. En annen handler om at velferd skaper avhengighet. En
tredje handler om eldrebølgen. En fjerde handler om at alenemødre antas å lure til seg velferd.
Og endelig handler en siste myte om at kriminalitet må møtes med straff og 'fengselspine'.
Artiklene er samlet sett et bidrag til å gjøre debatten om velferdsstaten rikere og mer dynamisk."