Matching Items (4)
Filtering by
- All Subjects: Political Science
Description
This study involves determining if different political symbols associated with ideological labels vary between the old and new terms. Specifically, the terms conservatism, liberalism, moderate, progressivism, and populism were used, where the first two are the old terms and the last two are the new terms. A survey was given to a representative sample of the United States, provided by SurveyMonkey, consisting of 205 respondents. Questions regarding favoritism/support for groups and political issues were asked to determine a trend of what each political ideology favors. Voting behavior was also evaluated to identify if there was a connection between self-identification of a political ideology or party and the frequency/type of elections that the individuals voted in. The hypothesis was that by adding progressivism to the liberalism category, the percentage of people who identify as these groups would be roughly equal to the percentage of people who identify as conservative, since the percentage of people who identify as conservative has been much greater than those who identify as liberal. The consensus was that the percentage of people who identified as liberal and progressive was greater than the percentage of those who identified as conservative. For example, the percentage of people who identified as conservative, moderate, liberal, and progressive was 25.9%, 31.7%, 27.3%, and 14.6%, respectively. Ultimately, after evaluating issue and symbolic preferences, progressivism is not just a term used in place of liberalism, but instead a whole new ideology that is different from other popular political ideologies. Considering voting behavior, there is no conclusive evidence that says that people who identify with one ideology vote more frequently or in a different election than people who identify with other ideologies.
ContributorsSypkens, Sasha T. (Author) / Ramirez, Mark (Thesis director) / Bustikova-Siroky, Lenka (Committee member) / Department of Physics (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2016-12
Description
This paper is an in-depth analysis of the actions and rhetoric of Donald Trump’s presidency from the perspective of Machiavelli’s most famed work, 'The Prince'. Its premise is born from two articles claiming Donald Trump was either the American Machiavelli or the Anti-Machiavelli, and sets out to find out which title is the most accurate. The end findings suggest that President Trump did not follow enough rules in 'The Prince' to be Machiavellian, but that Trumpism as a political doctrine has the potential grow into a modern day Machiavellianism.
ContributorsSandy, Charlotte Rose (Author) / Simhony, Avital (Thesis director) / Lennon, Tara (Committee member) / Historical, Philosophical & Religious Studies (Contributor) / School of Politics and Global Studies (Contributor, Contributor) / Watts College of Public Service & Community Solut (Contributor) / Historical, Philosophical & Religious Studies, Sch (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2021-05
Description
This thesis examines the recent emergence of populist radical right-wing parties across Western and Eastern Europe. Starting with the insufficiency of current explanations for this rise, I examine micro-, macro-, and meso- scale cross-national analyses to determine which major variables predict the rise of populist right-wing forces across these nation-states. Finally, using the conceptual resources of social identity theory, the paper argues that social status may be a mediating factor by which economic and cultural-identitarian forces influence the populist radical right.
ContributorsFerdowsian, Ryan Sameer (Author) / Hechter, Michael (Thesis director) / Pout, Daniel (Committee member) / Historical, Philosophical & Religious Studies (Contributor) / School of Politics and Global Studies (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2020-05
Description
Alexis de Tocqueville concludes the second volume of his influential political work Democracy in America with a discussion of “What Kind of Despotism Democratic Nations have to Fear.” The phenomenon Tocqueville seeks to capture in his final chapters is often called “democratic” or “soft” despotism, and it is notably distinct from the traditional conception of despotism. The threat soft despotism represents to democracies is new to the world Tocqueville lived in, and as such, Tocqueville chose the word despotism to describe it because he felt no better word existed. So, to accurately describe the phenomenon that Tocqueville feared, he had to re-conceptualize despotism. When Tocqueville discusses soft despotism, he means a democratic state where people are incapable of being truly free. In examining this concretely, I have developed five criteria which capture all the characteristics of soft despotism: 1. The equality of conditions; 2. The destruction of social connection; 3. The creation of a centralized administrative state; 4. The fulfillment of base desires; and 5. The death of the political sphere. In “Defining Soft Despotism,” I offer explanations of what each of these five criteria means, and I discuss both how Tocqueville and later scholars view them. I offer my own understanding of each of these criteria framed in Tocqueville’s thought. Next, in “Understanding Soft Despotism,” I discuss what about soft despotism is so concerning to Tocqueville and focus on his belief that it fundamentally changes the people who live under it, depriving them of their humanity. Then, I discuss why Americans should be concerned today. Lastly, in “Measuring Soft Despotism,” I take data for each of the five criteria and examine them to see if they appear to match what Tocqueville envisioned a soft despotism would be like. In my assessment, I find that America today does not seem to be a soft despotism. America does not meet all five criteria I believe define a soft despotism. Instead, it appears America is only close to experiencing two of the five: the destruction of social connection, and the death of the political sphere. Despite these findings, there is still room for concern that America is heading towards becoming a soft despotism, or is perhaps headed in a different, but equally undesirable direction.
ContributorsBartlemay, Robert Charles (Author) / German, Zachary (Thesis director) / Carrese, Paul (Committee member) / Historical, Philosophical & Religious Studies (Contributor, Contributor) / School of Civic & Economic Thought and Leadership (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2020-05