Suchergebnisse

THE AUTHOR STUDIES HOW THE PROBLEM OF CYCLICAL MAJORITIES AFFECTS THE LOGICAL STRUCTURE OF THE LIBERAL MODEL OF DEMOCRACY. HE ARGUES THAT RIKER'S DEFENSE OF LIBERALISM IS UNSATISFYING IN THAT IT ULTIMATELY DEPENDS UPON THE HOPE THAT CYCLES ARE NOT COMMON EVENTS. AS AN ALTERNATIVE SOLUTION, HE PROPOSES THAT THE ASSUMPTIONS OF A PROPERLY-CONSTRUED LIBERAL MODEL IMPLY CONDITIONS THAT PROHIBIT THE OCCURRENCE OF THE VOTER'S PARADOX. HE CONCLUDES THAT LIBERALISM CONTINUES TO SURVIVE DESPITE THE FACT THAT ITS INTERNAL STRUCTURE DEPENDS UPON THE TRANSITIVITY OF COLLECTIVE PREFERENCES AND THAT THIS FACT, IN TURN, PROVIDES A THEORETICAL FOUNDATION FOR PURSUING MORE ROBUST OR POPULISTIC CONCEPTIONS OF DEMOCRACY.

THE AUTHOR DISCUSSES AND CRITIQUES THE MAJOR THEMES PRESENTED BY BENJAMIN RADCLIFF IN "LIBERALISM, POPULISM, AND COLLECTIVE CHOICE." HIS COMMENTS TOUCH ON RADCLIFF'S EFFORT TO RECONSTRUCT THE LOGIC OF LIBERALISM IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH THE THEORY OF VOTING AS WELL AS MAJORITY TYRANNY, CONSTITUTIONAL DESIGN, AND THE PROPENSITY FOR TYRANNY IN LIBERAL AND POPULISTIC SYSTEMS.

The Paper tracks down the development of parallel liberalist and populist agendas within the Catholic camp; it analyses the factors of each of them that have attracted portions of Catholics; it reflects on the tensions that are arising among Catholic groups that endorse diverging political platforms. It concludes by making the claim that both liberalism and populism fail to adequately address some of the concerns that define contemporary Catholicism.

This open access book by Nils Karlson explores the strategies used by left- and right-wing populists to make populism intelligible, recognizable, and contestable. It presents a synthesized explanatory model for how populists promote autocratization through the deliberate polarization of society. It traces the ideational roots of the core populist ideas and shows that these ideas form a collectivistic identity politics. Karlson argues that to fight back requires the revival of liberalism itself by defending and developing the liberal institutions, the liberal spirit, liberal narratives, and liberal statecraft.  The book also presents and discusses an extensive list of counterstrategies against populism.  Written within the tradition of political theory and institutional economics, this book uses a wide variety of sources, including results and analyses from social psychology, ethics, law, and history.

This open access book by Nils Karlson explores the strategies used by left- and right-wing populists to make populism intelligible, recognizable, and contestable. It presents a synthesized explanatory model for how populists promote autocratization through the deliberate polarization of society. It traces the ideational roots of the core populist ideas and shows that these ideas form a collectivistic identity politics. Karlson argues that to fight back requires the revival of liberalism itself by defending and developing the liberal institutions, the liberal spirit, liberal narratives, and liberal statecraft.  The book also presents and discusses an extensive list of counterstrategies against populism.  Written within the tradition of political theory and institutional economics, this book uses a wide variety of sources, including results and analyses from social psychology, ethics, law, and history.

This paper considers the threats that various kinds of populism might be said to pose to the ideal of a civil society that mediates between 'private' and family life and the state. Although it is difficult to generalise about populisms, just about all – whether on left or right – share a hostility to 'intermediate' powers. Of course civil society is exactly what could be called a forum for intermediate powers. In contrast, populists often tend to emphasize a vision of immediate power in the sense of the possibility of the direct expression of the people's will in political institutions. Populists, of whatever pitch, often tend to invoke a partisan state that will be on the side of the people (however defined) rather than a putatively neutral 'liberal' state that stands over and against civil society. These factors make most populisms more or less generically hostile to liberalism, understood not in ideological terms but more as a doctrine which emphasises the necessity of mediating power through institutions. Very often, populism is a threat to the idea of civil society understood as a concept integral to liberal political theory, as a means of balancing the state and its wider interlocutors. In this paper, various means, largely inspired by the writings of Tocqueville on the one hand and Paul Hirst on the other, are suggested for addressing aspects of this predicament.

Chapter 1: Classical Liberalism against Populism -- Chapter 2: Populism - defining characteristics -- Chapter 3: A Threat to Liberty, Free Markets, and the Open Society -- Chapter 4: Explaining Populism -- Chapter 5: The Populist Divisive, Activist Ideas -- Chapter 6: The Classical Liberal Ideas, Predicaments, and Potentials -- Chapter 7: Expose the Populist Strategies and Consequences -- Chapter 8: Defend and Develop the Liberal Institutions -- Chapter 9: Advance a Liberal Politics of Identity -- Chapter 10: Develop Liberal Statecraft -- Chapter 11: A Classical Liberal Revival.

Abstract This paper considers the threats that various kinds of populism might be said to pose to the ideal of a civil society that mediates between 'private' and family life and the state. Although it is difficult to generalise about populisms, just about all—whether on left or right—share a hostility to 'intermediate' powers. Of course civil society is exactly what could be called a forum for intermediate powers. In contrast, populists often tend to emphasise a vision of immediate power in the sense of the possibility of the direct expression of the people's will in political institutions. Populists, of whatever pitch, often tend to invoke a partisan state that will be on the side of the people (however defined) rather than a putatively neutral 'liberal' state that stands over and against civil society. These factors make most populisms more or less generically hostile to liberalism, understood not in ideological terms but more as a doctrine which emphasises the necessity of mediating power through institutions. Very often, populism is a threat to the idea of civil society understood as a concept integral to liberal political theory, as a means of balancing the state and its wider interlocutors. In this paper, various means, largely inspired by the writings of Tocqueville on the one hand and Paul Hirst on the other, are suggested for addressing aspects of this predicament.

AbstractThis paper considers the threats that various kinds of populism might be said to pose to the ideal of a civil society that mediates between 'private' and family life and the state. Although it is difficult to generalise about populisms, just about all—whether on left or right—share a hostility to 'intermediate' powers. Of course civil society is exactly what could be called a forum for intermediate powers. In contrast, populists often tend to emphasise a vision of immediate power in the sense of the possibility of the direct expression of the people's will in political institutions. Populists, of whatever pitch, often tend to invoke a partisan state that will be on the side of the people (however defined) rather than a putatively neutral 'liberal' state that stands over and against civil society. These factors make most populisms more or less generically hostile to liberalism, understood not in ideological terms but more as a doctrine which emphasises the necessity of mediating power through institutions. Very often, populism is a threat to the idea of civil society understood as a concept integral to liberal political theory, as a means of balancing the state and its wider interlocutors. In this paper, various means, largely inspired by the writings of Tocqueville on the one hand and Paul Hirst on the other, are suggested for addressing aspects of this predicament.