Suchergebnisse

Previous studies of lottery diffusion include all lottery adoptions, treating them as possessing characteristics that render their politics similar. Here, the possibility is explored that different types of lotteries generate different types of politics. Although all lotteries involve considerations of morality, some types of lotteries can involve additional values beyond concerns about the "sin" of gambling. The dedication of lottery revenue to a specific purpose can arouse these additional concerns & change the politics of adoption. It is hypothesized that dedication of lottery revenue to the general fund will therefore generate different politics of adoption than lotteries designed to fund education. Event-history analysis of fiscal & other measures on lottery adoption reveals that previous findings on lottery diffusion apply only to general fund lotteries. If lottery revenue is dedicated to education, the potent symbol of children's education significantly changes the politics of adoption. 3 Tables, 1 Appendix, 57 References. Adapted from the source document.

In recent years, there have been a number of examples of African Americans mobilizing around morality politics issues. In Maryland, Black churches and church leaders mobilized against legalizing same-sex marriage. This entailed a more extensive mobilization than for any issue in recent memory. Despite this unprecedented mobilization, a majority of Black state legislators supported a measure legalizing same-sex marriage as the vast majority voted on the basis of their personal attitudes on the issue. This suggests Black legislators may serve as a buffer against Black social conservatism. Examination of this issue yields some important insights in terms of how Black churches mobilize in the contemporary context, perceptions of the political power of the Black church, how conceptions of "civil rights" intersects with this particular issue, and the inadequacy of labels like "progressive" or "conservative" to fully describe many Black political actors—especially when it comes to morality politics.

Both Catholics and non-Catholics attempt to enlist the Pope as a partisan of one or another political cause: disarmament, socialization, civil rights, aid for underdeveloped nations, the condemnation of a Hitler. The relationship between morality and politics, however, is ambiguous. Good men may well disagree about which long-range or short-range political programs are best calculated to serve man's moral interests. What, then, is the present position of the Catholic—liberal or conservative—when the Pope makes a moral-political statement about the issues of our time?In its general lines, the traditional answer to this question is simple enough. There are three elements to distinguish: (1) moral principles; (2) political programs; (3) concrete decisions. The Pope's moral competence extends most clearly to declarations about principles. In proportion as judgments about historical facts, present trends, and the yet uncertain future are involved in political programs, the Pope's competence becomes increasingly ambiguous; his is increasingly but one of many prophetic voices "crying in the wilderness."

This book is both a critique of the concept of the rights-holding, free, autonomous individual and attendant ideology dominant in the contemporary West, and an account of an alternative view, that of the role-bearing, interrelated responsible person of classical Confucianism, suitably modified for addressing the manifold problems of today.

As the founder of German East Africa, Carl Peters exercised a continuing hold on the German imagination in the 1890s despite the growth of a general "colonial-weariness" (Kolonialmüdigkeit) in the population. Among a group of colonial adventurers which had failed to produce any man of truly heroic proportions, he still seemed to many a man of unusual mettle, and the entire colonial effort was closely associated with his name. Knowing this, the Colonial Division for four years kept hidden from the public the story of Peters' misbehavior on the slopes of Mt. Kilimanjaro in 1891 and 1892. The Division did not simply refuse to pursue the case expeditiously but refused to admit the facts at all. It was a dangerous game, but one which the government felt it had to play in order to preserve the integrity of the colonial movement. The unfortunate result was that when the story did break in 1896 as a consequence of Social Democratic revelations, the Colonial Division found itself as much on the defense as Peters himself. Not only had a person of Peters's stature violated basic human rights, but the government had put itself in the position of implicitly condoning the brutal suppression of a colonial people. The "civilizing mission," no one could deny, had been misused for private gain and pleasure, and the Social Democratic attacks on colonialism gained a new moral credibility which could be used to strengthen the party's popularity, much to the chagrin of government officials.

AbstractThis article analyses parliamentary debates on marriage equality in Germany to understand what factors shape how parties deal with morality politics argumentatively. I argue that the internal divisions of parties and their coalition parties are crucial for the argumentation strategies used in parliamentary debates on morally charged wedge issues. Internally divided parties and parties that must be loyal to coalition partners confronted with internal divisions are likely to employ a discursive avoidance strategy to mitigate the potential for intra‐party and intra‐coalition polarization. To test this empirically, I examine the speeches of the German Bundestag on the Life Partnership Act in 2000 and Marriage for All in 2016 and 2017. The qualitative content analysis confirms my argument: The internally divided CDU and its coalition partners applied avoidance strategies by framing the issue primarily around constitutional principles and using procedural arguments, rather than framing the discourse as an issue of morality politics.ZusammenfassungDer Artikel analysiert parlamentarische Debatten zur Anerkennung gleichgeschlechtlicher Partnerschaften und Ehen in Deutschland, um zu verstehen, welche Faktoren die Argumentationen von Parteien im Wettbewerb um Moralpolitik beeinflussen. Ich argumentiere, dass die interne Spaltung von Parteien und ihrer Koalitionsparteien entscheidend für die Argumentationsstrategien ist, die in parlamentarischen Debatten über moralisch aufgeladene "wedge issues "verwendet werden. Intern gespaltene Parteien und Parteien, die loyal zu Koalitionspartnern sein müssen, die mit internen Spaltungen konfrontiert sind, verwenden eine diskursive Vermeidungsstrategie, um das Potenzial für eine innerparteiliche und koalitionsinterne Polarisierung abzuschwächen. Das Argument wird anhand einer qualitativen Inhaltsanalyse von Reden von Abgeordneten des Deutschen Bundestages zum Lebenspartnerschaftsgesetz im Jahr 2000 und zur Ehe für Alle im Jahr 2016/2017 bestätigt: Die innerparteilich zerstrittene CDU und ihre Koalitionspartner wendeten Vermeidungsstrategien an, indem sie das Thema in erster Linie in Zusammenhang mit verfassungsrechtlichen Grundsätzen thematisieren und prozedurale Argumente verwendeten, anstatt den Diskurs als eine moralpolitische Frage zu gestalten.RésuméCet article analyse les débats parlementaires afin de comprendre les facteurs qui façonnent la manière dont les partis traitent la politique morale sur le plan argumentatif. Je soutiens que les divisions au sein des partis et entre les partis d'une coalition représentent un facteur décisif dans les stratégies d'argumentation utilisées dans les débats parlementaires sur les questions morales portant à controverse (« wedge issues »). Les partis divisés en interne et les partis devant rester loyaux envers leurs partenaires de coalition, eux‐mêmes confrontés à des divisions internes, sont susceptibles d'employer une stratégie discursive d'évitement pour atténuer le potentiel de polarisation intra‐parti et intra‐coalition. Pour tester cela empiriquement, j'examine les discours du Bundestag allemand sur la loi relative au partenariat de vie enregistré en 2000 et celle instituant le mariage pour tous en 2016/17. L'analyse qualitative de ces textes confirme mon argument: La CDU, divisée en interne, et ses partenaires de coalition ont appliqué des stratégies d'évitement en abordant la question principalement autour des principes constitutionnels et en utilisant des arguments procéduraux, plutôt que de cadrer le discours comme une question de politique morale.