scholarly journals Neokonserwatyzm na tle systemu partyjnego w Stanach Zjednoczonych Ameryki

2018 ◽  
pp. 147-154
Author(s):  
Jacek Raubo

The indisputable uniqueness of the US’s political system is also reflected in its party system. The exceptional nature of some elements that characterize the most important US political par- ties can be illustrated by presenting the evolution of what is called neoconservative thought. Neoconservative roots reach back to the Democratic Party, yet the implementation of their most important assumptions, in particular in the field of international policy, is strictly related to their changeover to the Republican side. The objective of this paper is therefore to indicate the transi- tion that took place in the US political stage, mainly in the period of the Ronald Reagan adminis- tration, and to determine the modern position of neoconservatism, in particular in the context of the weakened Republican position following the election success of Barack Obama.

1974 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 146-164 ◽  
Author(s):  
Felice Rizzi

A FEW YEARS AGO, GALL1 AND PRANDI WROTE THAT THE UNIFICATION of the socialists represented a phase of rationalization of the Italian political system. Not only did the re-unification of the PSI (Socialist Party of Italy) and the PSDI (Social Democratic Party of Italy) lead to a simplification of the party subsystem (by reducing its excessive numbers), thus rendering the choice between alternatives easier for the electorate. But at last a single voice seemed to emerge which could undertake the task of opposing the twenty years of Christian Democrat predominance, which had been responsible for so many aspects of political ‘immobilism’. Moreover it was possible to discern a strategic design in the socialist plans — an optimistic design perhaps, but entailing possible innovations. The formation of a strong Socialist Party might have led to the overcoming of one of the principal - if not the greatest - defects of the Italian party system: the absence of a mechanism of rewards and punishments.


2009 ◽  
Vol 43 (2) ◽  
pp. 231-253
Author(s):  
TIMOTHY RANDOLPH STANLEY

In 1980 Senator Edward Kennedy challenged incumbent President Jimmy Carter for the Democratic Party presidential nomination. Kennedy's defeat has often been used as evidence of a philosophical realignment within the American electorate in the late 1970s away from Democratic liberalism, which culminated in the election of Ronald Reagan as President. However, Kennedy performed better than this interpretation suggests. His defeat was caused by historical accident: a poor campaign, international crises and Carter's use of the incumbency. The strengths of the Kennedy campaign cast doubt upon the theory of realignment and suggest that liberalism enjoyed greater support among the US electorate than has previously been considered.


2014 ◽  
Vol 46 (4) ◽  
pp. 825-844 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yphtach Lelkes ◽  
Paul M. Sniderman

Most Americans support liberal policies on the social welfare agenda, the dominant policy cleavage in American politics. Yet a striking feature of the US party system is its tendency to equilibrium. How, then, does the Republican Party minimize defection on the social welfare agenda? The results of this study illustrate a deep ideological asymmetry between the parties. Republican identifiers are ideologically aware and oriented to a degree that far exceeds their Democratic counterparts. Our investigation, which utilizes cross-sectional, longitudinal and experimental data, demonstrates the role of ideological awareness and involvement in the Republicans’ ability to maintain the backing of their supporters even on issues on which the position of the Democratic Party is widely popular. It also exposes two mechanisms, party branding and the use of the status quo as a focal point, that Democrats use to retain or rally support for issues on the social welfare agenda on which the Republican Party’s position is widely popular.


Author(s):  
D. V. STRELTSOV

In the political system of post-war Japan there emerged a unique phenomenon of the ‘1955 system’, which contradicted, in its  form and in its essence, to the principle of the changeability of power inherent for the democratic systems. The Liberal-Democratic  Party retained majority in the lower house of Diet for the 38-year period, which allowed it to form the government without joining coalitions with any other parties. “The 1955 system” was a form of  adaptation of the political power to the specific conditions of cold war era. In the sphere of foreign policy, the bipolar model of the  Japanese political system reflected the ideological choice between  the capitalist system led by the United States and the socialist  system led by the USSR. In the economic sphere, the dominant  party system was the most appropriate response to the specific  needs of the mobilization economic model, in which first fiddle was played by bureaucracy, whilst the political power performed  rather decorative functions. The authoritarian features in the LDP  power system that can be imagined to be the result of its  monopolistic rule, in reality did not have a distinct manifestation because of the de facto absence of unity in its top  management and the preservation of a viable faction system well  adapted to the electoral model of the multimember  districts. The  end of ‘the 1955 system’, associated with the end of the cold war,  manifested itself in the loss of the LDP’s dominant position in the  party system and in the beginning of the era of coalition  governments. The issues of ideology in the post-bipolar period lost  their significance as a form of axis in the inter-party division. Currently, the LDP holds the leading positions in the political arena  as the main political force in the Diet. The ruling party faces serious  problems, among which one can mention the decline of the LDP  authority in the Japanese society against the background of resonant  political scandals, the absence of intra-party democracy  and the authoritarian style of Abe’s rule which raises the risks of  political mistakes, as well as the lack of reliable mechanisms of  succession of senior positions in the party hierarchy. However, the  specificity of the electoral system, as well as the chronic state of split and the absence of strong political leaders in the opposition camp,  give the LDP substantial advantages against other parties, feeding  the conclusion that the LDP will remain the dominant political force  of Japan in the foreseeable future.


2012 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 57-76 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sidney M. Milkis ◽  
Jesse H. Rhodes ◽  
Emily J. Charnock

Ascending to the presidency in the midst of a severe economic crisis and an ongoing war on terrorism, Barack Obama faced numerous political and policy challenges. We examine the responsibilities he faced in assuming the received tasks of modern presidential leadership amid a polarized political system. To a point, Obama has embraced partisan leadership, indeed, even further articulating developments in the relationship between the president and parties that Ronald Reagan had first initiated, and George W. Bush built upon. Thus Obama has advanced an executive-centered party system that relies on presidential candidates and presidents to pronounce party doctrine, raise campaign funds, mobilize grassroots support, and campaign on behalf of their partisan brethren. Just as Reagan and Bush used their powers in ways that bolstered their parties, so Obama's exertions have strengthened the Democratic Party's capacity to mobilize voters and to advance programmatic objectives. At the same time, presidential partisanship threatens to relegate collective responsibility to executive aggrandizement. Seeking to avoid the pitfalls that undermined the Bush presidency, Obama has been more ambivalent about uniting partisanship and executive power. Only time will tell whether this ambiguity proves to be effective statecraft—enshrining his charisma in an enduring record of achievement and a new Democratic majority—or whether it marks a new stage in the development of executive dominion that subordinates party building to the cult of personality.


2020 ◽  
pp. 002190962094154
Author(s):  
Hawre Hasan Hama ◽  
Farhad hassan abdullah

The Kurdistan Region of Iraq has a multi-party system which has been held up as a model for democratic pluralism in the whole region. The nature of Kurdistan’s political parties is strongly related to the position of Kurds in Iraq. From the mid-twentieth century, the dominant Kurdish political party in Iraq was the Kurdistan Democratic Party; in a later partisan split the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan was born. Moreover, in the last three decades other political parties have come into being, which have all influenced the characteristics of Iraqi Kurdistan’s political system. This paper’s main argument is that Iraqi Kurdistan shares many of the characteristics of its main political parties, including reliance on charismatic leadership, a focus on nationalism, and the lack of transparency. This paper analyzes the primary characteristics of the Kurdish political parties and their influence on the institutional functions of the political system in the Kurdistan Region.


2010 ◽  
Vol 45 (1) ◽  
pp. 131-144
Author(s):  
THOMAS JAY NISLEY

In the 1980s, President Ronald Reagan began the tradition of returning military personnel's salutes. At his inauguration, President Barack Obama returned the salutes of the troops as they paraded by the reviewing stand. Some may suggest these actions are simply a sign of respect by Presidents for the service of the military. Nevertheless, we must also understand how Presidents have used military ritual and symbols to enhance their powers. By embracing military symbols, the President is transformed from a civilian to a military figure. This transformation diminishes Congress's ability to exercise its constitutional war power. Congress is less likely to challenge a President perceived as part of the military than one perceived as the civilian chief executive.


2018 ◽  
Vol 42 ◽  
pp. 256-265
Author(s):  
Konstantin V. Simonov ◽  
Stanislav P. Mitrakhovich

The article examines the possibility of transfer to bipartisan system in Russia. The authors assess the benefits of the two-party system that include first of all the ensuring of actual political competition and authority alternativeness with simultaneous separation of minute non-system forces that may contribute to the country destabilization. The authors analyze the accompanying risks and show that the concept of the two-party system as the catalyst of elite schism is mostly exaggerated. The authors pay separate attention to the experience of bipartisan system implementation in other countries, including the United States. They offer detailed analysis of the generated concept of the bipartisanship crisis and show that this point of view doesn’t quite agree with the current political practice. The authors also examine the foreign experience of the single-party system. They show that the success of the said system is mostly insubstantial, besides many of such systems have altered into more complex structures, while commentators very often use not the actual information but the established myths about this or that country. The authors also offer practical advice regarding the potential technologies of transition to the bipartisan system in Russia.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document