scholarly journals The Majoritarian Threat to Liberal Democracy

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-10
Author(s):  
Guy Grossman ◽  
Dorothy Kronick ◽  
Matthew Levendusky ◽  
Marc Meredith
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Liberal Democracy ◽  
The United States ◽  
Elected Officials ◽  
Survey Experiments ◽  
Prior Literature ◽  
Elected Leaders ◽  
Original Survey

Abstract Incumbents often seek to wield power in ways that are formally legal but informally proscribed. Why do voters endorse these power grabs? Prior literature focuses on polarization. We propose instead that many voters are majoritarian, in that they view popularly elected leaders’ actions as inherently democratic – even when those actions undermine liberal democracy. We find support for this claim in two original survey experiments, arguing that majoritarians’ desire to give wide latitude to elected officials is an important but understudied threat to liberal democracy in the United States.

Legislative Staff and Representation in Congress

2018 ◽  
Vol 113 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-18 ◽  
Author(s):  
ALEXANDER HERTEL-FERNANDEZ ◽  
MATTO MILDENBERGER ◽  
LEAH C. STOKES
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Interest Groups ◽  
The United States ◽  
Staff Perceptions ◽  
Democratic Representation ◽  
Survey Experiments ◽  
Policy Information ◽  
Congressional Staff ◽  
Original Survey ◽  
Ordinary Citizens

Legislative staff link Members of Congress and their constituents, theoretically facilitating democratic representation. Yet, little research has examined whether Congressional staff actually recognize the preferences of their Members’ constituents. Using an original survey of senior US Congressional staffers, we show that staff systematically mis-estimate constituent opinions. We then evaluate the sources of these misperceptions, using observational analyses and two survey experiments. Staffers who rely more heavily on conservative and business interest groups for policy information have more skewed perceptions of constituent opinion. Egocentric biases also shape staff perceptions. Our findings complicate assumptions that Congress represents constituent opinion, and help to explain why Congress often appears so unresponsive to ordinary citizens. We conclude that scholars should focus more closely on legislative aides as key actors in the policymaking process, both in the United States and across other advanced democracies.

Populism and Liberal Democracy

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Takis S. Pappas
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Liberal Democracy ◽  
The United States ◽  
Comprehensive Theory ◽  
The People ◽  
Original Definition ◽  
Key Issues ◽  
Great Relevance ◽  
Definition Of

Based on an original definition of modern populism as “democratic illiberalism” and many years of meticulous research, Takis Pappas marshals extraordinary empirical evidence from Argentina, Greece, Peru, Italy, Venezuela, Ecuador, Hungary, the United States, Spain, and Brazil to develop a comprehensive theory about populism. He addresses all key issues in the debate about populism and answers significant questions of great relevance for today’s liberal democracy, including: • What is modern populism and how can it be differentiated from comparable phenomena like nativism and autocracy? • Where in Latin America has populism become most successful? Where in Europe did it emerge first? Why did its rise to power in the United States come so late? • Is Trump a populist and, if so, could he be compared best with Venezuela’s Chávez, France’s Le Pens, or Turkey’s Erdoğan? • Why has populism thrived in post-authoritarian Greece but not in Spain? And why in Argentina and not in Brazil? • Can populism ever succeed without a charismatic leader? If not, what does leadership tell us about how to challenge populism? • Who are “the people” who vote for populist parties, how are these “made” into a group, and what is in their minds? • Is there a “populist blueprint” that all populists use when in power? And what are the long-term consequences of populist rule? • What does the expansion, and possibly solidification, of populism mean for the very nature and future of contemporary democracy? Populism and Liberal Democracy will change the ways the reader understands populism and imagines the prospects of liberal democracy.

Women’s Rights, Suffrage, and Citizenship, 1789–1920

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ellen Carol DuBois
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Progressive Era ◽  
Women's Rights ◽  
Liberal Democracy ◽  
The United States ◽  
Women’S Rights ◽  
Early National Period ◽  
Political Landscape ◽  
Antebellum Politics ◽  
Early National

The United States was a pioneer in the development of women’s rights ideas and activism. Far-seeing women, determined to find an active and equal place in the nation’s political affairs, pushed long and hard to realize America’s democratic promise. Over three-quarters of a century, women’s rights and suffrage leaders steadily agitated their cause through a shifting American political landscape, from the careful innovations of the early national period, through the expansive involvements of antebellum politics, into the dramatic shifts of revolution and reaction in the post–Civil War years, up to the modernization of the Progressive Era. The meaning and content of “womanhood,” the sign under which these campaigns were conducted, also shifted. Labor, class, and especially race inclusions and exclusions were contentious dimensions of the American women’s rights movement, as they were of American liberal democracy in general.

The “Separation” of Religion and Polities: The Paradoxes of Spinoza

1988 ◽  
Vol 50 (4) ◽  
pp. 603-627 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hillel G. Fradkin
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Liberal Democracy ◽  
Religion And Politics ◽  
The United States ◽  
Religious Values ◽  
The Political ◽  
Moral Action ◽  
American Founding ◽  
Founding Fathers

Benedict Spinoza is the first philosophical proponent of liberal democracy. In his Theologico-Political Tractate he calls for the liberation of philosophy from theology and for the subordination of religion to politics. Though Spinoza may have not influenced the American Founding Fathers directly, both the clarity and the paradoxes of his arguments are perhaps the best guide to understanding better the present-day conflicts over religion and politics in the United States. Spinoza's insistence on the prerogative of the political sovereign to exercise absolute authority in the sphere of moral action necessarily complicates religious values. But the “inconveniences” resulting from liberal democracy are justified in terms of justice.

Theorizing Gentrification as a Process of Racial Capitalism

2021 ◽  
pp. 153568412110547
Author(s):  
Zawadi Rucks-Ahidiana
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Middle Class ◽  
Racial Differences ◽  
Low Income ◽  
The United States ◽  
Racial Composition ◽  
Qualitative And Quantitative ◽  
Racial Capitalism ◽  
Quantitative Studies ◽  
Prior Literature

Academics largely define gentrification based on changes in the class demographics of neighborhood residents from predominately low-income to middle-class. This ignores that gentrification always occurs in spaces defined by both class and race. In this article, I use the lens of racial capitalism to theorize gentrification as a racialized, profit-accumulating process, integrating the perspective that spaces are always racialized to class-centered theories. Using the prior literature on gentrification in the United States, I demonstrate how the concepts of value, valuation, and devaluation from racial capitalism explain where and how gentrification unfolds. Exposure to gentrification varies depending on a neighborhood’s racial composition and the gentrification stakeholders involved, which contributes to racial differences in the scale and pace of change and the implications of those changes for the processes of displacement. Revising our understanding of gentrification to address the racialization of space helps resolve seemingly contradictory findings across qualitative and quantitative studies.

Freedom, Equality and the Quality of Democracy

2015 ◽  
pp. 1778-1804
Author(s):  
Thorsten D. Barth
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Liberal Democracy ◽  
Research Question ◽  
The United States ◽  
Quality Of Democracy ◽  
Democratic Development ◽  
Quintuple Helix ◽  
Essential Questions ◽  
Democratic Life

Freedom and equality are the content, the substance and the tension in a liberal democracy of today. Freedom and equality describe the design, stability and the quality of a democracy. Especially in a Quintuple Helix Model, the quality of democracy and sustainable development are closely related, because a high-quality democracy is a prerequisite for promoting sustainability in democracies. By investigating the quality of democracy this article develops two theses: 1.) Democracy with their quality rises or falls with the expression of freedom and/or equality; 2.) Democracy generates its stability from a balanced interaction between freedom and equality. With the concept of Democratic Life this article examines these two theses: Democratic Life as newly developed concept measures the quality of democracy with providing information about the type of a democracy and an approach to measure a democracy´s democratic development for the top 20 of the Democracy Ranking (2009). The central keys of the Democratic Life concept are the ‘Index of Classification' and the ‘Democratic-Life-Index', which are formed from an ‘Index of Freedom' and an ‘Index of Equality'. By empirical examination of the research question of Democratic Life two essential questions in the modern democratic theory can be investigated: 1.) How democratic is a democracy? 2.) How much freedom and equality does a liberal democracy need? The countries analyzed for the Democratic Life concept in this article are the United States, Australia, Sweden and Germany in comparison between 1995 and 2008. This degree of democratic quality will create a lot of problems towards developing sustainability in a democracy, because in the United States there is currently a big disparity between freedom and equality.

Louis Fisher on Congress and the Budget: Institutional Responsibility and Other Taboos

2013 ◽  
Vol 46 (03) ◽  
pp. 510-514
Author(s):  
Jasmine Farrier
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Fiscal Policy ◽  
Political Science ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
The United States ◽  
Public Intellectual ◽  
Power Balance ◽  
Elected Leaders ◽  
Institutional Responsibility

The serial fiscal policy and budgeting woes of the United States over the last three decades have been compounded by a bipartisan evasion of institutional responsibility by elected leaders. Long before “sequestration” and “fiscal cliffs,” Louis Fisher argued that presidents and members of the House and Senate undermined constitutional power balance and the spirit of budgeting law. A variety of ill-conceived process “reforms” further damaged the separation of powers system. As a scholar, Fisher uses an institutional lens to explore budget concepts that are rare in political science, such ascapacity, accountability, andduty. And as a public intellectual, Fisher's relevance has been secured by his repeatedly broaching these scholarly and political taboos.

scholarly journals Celebrating the Secular

2013 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 202-206
Author(s):  
Amanda Lohrey
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Liberal Democracy ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
The United States ◽  
Good Thing ◽  
Individual Autonomy ◽  
Moral Vision ◽  
Freedom Of Conscience ◽  
Thing In Itself ◽  
The Law

On 4 November 2004 I read a report in the Sydney Morning Herald that I found genuinely shocking, a statement by Cardinal George Pell, of the Catholic diocese of Sydney, on what’s wrong with democracy. This report was of a speech given to the Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty in the United States. In it, Dr Pell told his audience that liberal democracy is a world of ‘empty secularism’ that is over-focused on ‘individual autonomy’. The problem with democracy, said the Cardinal, quoting John Paul II, is that it is not a good thing in itself; its value depends on the moral vision that it serves, and a secular democracy is lacking in moral vision. If democracy is not a good thing in and of itself, then why have we sent troops to Iraq to enable it? And what about the principle of equality before the law? Freedom of conscience? Freedom of speech and of action? Responsibility for community? Sounds like a moral vision to me.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document