Chapter 3. Presidential Nominations, Factional Conflict, and Prospects for Democratic Party Reform

2019 ◽  
Vol 33 (1) ◽  
pp. 87-109
Author(s):  
Adam Hilton

American politics has been transformed by the emergence of the advocacy party—a form of organization in which extraparty interest groups, advocacy organizations, and social movements substitute for the diminished institutional capacity and popular legitimacy of the formal party apparatus. Many scholars have rightly pointed to the presidential nomination reforms made by the Democratic Party's post-1968 Commission on Party Structure and Delegate Selection (known as the McGovern-Fraser Commission) as a key contributor to polarization by increasing the influence of ideological activists. However, I argue that polarization is not the direct result of the actions of McGovern-Fraser reformers, but rather the outcome of their pitched battle with intraparty opponents of reform, who, while failing to prevent changes to presidential nominations, were ultimately successful in defeating the party-building dimension of the reformers’ project of party reconstruction. The product of their intraparty struggle was a hybrid institutional amalgam that layered new participatory arrangements over a hollow party structure, thus setting the Democratic Party on a path toward the advocacy party and its polarizing politics.


Author(s):  
Tetiana Fedorchak

The author investigates political radicalism in the Czech Republic, a rather heterogeneous current considering the structure of participants: from political parties to the extremist organizations. The peculiarity of the Czech party system is the existence, along with typical radical parties, of other non-radical parties whose representatives support xenophobic, nationalist and anti-Islamic statements. This is primarily the Civil Democratic Party, known for its critical attitude towards European integration, and the Communist party of the Czech Republic and Moravia, which opposes Czech membership in NATO and the EU. Among the Czech politicians, who are close to radical views, analysts include the well-known for its anti-Islamic position of the Czech President M. Zeman and the leader of the movement ANO, billionaire A. Babich. Voters vote for them not because their economic or social programs are particularly attractive to the electorate, but because of dissatisfaction with the economic situation in the state. Almost all right populist parties oppose European integration, interpreting it as an anti-national project run by an elite distorted by a deficit of democracy and corruption. Keywords: Czech Republic, right-wing radical political parties, European integration, nationalism.


2013 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 141
Author(s):  
Arizka Warganegara

This study is about the law development of social democracy in the perspective of Eduard Bernstein andAnthony Giddens. It applied the method of qualitative analysis and used the library research, the data inthis study analyzed with the content of analysis. The main purposes of this study wants to describe andanalysis of Law Development of Social Democracy in the perspective of Bernstein and Giddens.Socialism Democracy of Bernstein and Cosmopolitan Democracy of Giddens used as toll of comparative.Social Democracy has been revision three times, Bernstein is the first generation, The second generationis Social Democratic Party of Germany with The bad Godesberg Program and the last is Giddens. Theinteresting of this study is the basic difference among Bernstein and Giddens in the understanding ofconcept of Social Democracy. The different time and context imply the different ontology andepistemology to this ideology. If Bernstein lived in the time of raised of capitalism and Industrialization inEurope, Giddens has lived in the time of this ideology must be against the raises of Neo liberalism andGlobalization. Actually The basic concept of Social democracy of Bersntein is his critics to the theory andconcept of Karl Marx, this causes the different perspective with Giddens. Finally Giddens made thisideology more Liberal than before, many political scientist assume that The Third Way of Giddens is thecontinuously of Capitalism.Keywords : Social Democracy, Bad Godesberg and Capitalism


2007 ◽  
Vol 61 (1) ◽  
pp. 95-111
Author(s):  
Virginie Collombier

Beyond the relative opening of the political system that characterized 2005 in Egypt — with the President being elected directly for the first time and the increased competition allowed during legislative elections — the 2005 elections also constituted an opportunity to consider and evaluate the internal struggles for influence under way within the ruling National Democratic Party (NDP). In a context largely influenced by the perspective of President Husni Mubarak's succession and by calls for reform coming from both internal and external actors, changes currently occurring at the party level may have a decisive impact on the future of the Egyptian regime.


Author(s):  
Thomas K. Ogorzalek

Recent electoral cycles have drawn attention to an urban–rural divide at the heart of American politics. This book traces the origins of red and blue America. The urbanicity divide began with the creation of an urban political order that united leaders from major cities and changed the Democratic Party during the New Deal era. These cities, despite being the site of serious, complex conflicts at home, are remarkably cohesive in national politics because members of city delegations represent their city as well as their district. Even though their constituents often don’t see eye-to-eye on important issues, members of these city delegations represent a united city position known as progressive liberalism. Using a wide range of congressional evidence and a unique dataset measuring the urbanicity of U.S. House districts over time, this book argues that city cohesion, an invaluable tool used by cities to address their urgent governance needs through higher levels of government, is fostered by local institutions developed to provide local political order. Crucially, these integrative institutions also helped foster the development of civil rights liberalism by linking constituencies that were not natural allies in support of group pluralism and racial equality. This in turn led to the departure from the coalition of the Southern Democrats, and to our contemporary political environment. The urban combination of diversity and liberalism—supported by institutions that make allies out of rivals—teaches us lessons for governing in a world increasingly characterized by deep social difference and political fragmentation.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document