Pols Ch.5.docx

Ch.5: Traditional Western Ideologies What Is an Ideology? This chapter and the following one will delve into political ideologies, which are integral to the book as they contribute to shaping the political landscape on both domestic and international levels. Each ideology encompasses a set of politi...

Ch.5: Traditional Western Ideologies What Is an Ideology? This chapter and the following one will delve into political ideologies, which are integral to the book as they contribute to shaping the political landscape on both domestic and international levels. Each ideology encompasses a set of political ideas, with liberalism emphasizing liberty, socialism focusing on equality, and nationalism also emerging from Enlightenment thought. This chapter explores traditional ideologies associated with the European Enlightenment, including liberalism, socialism, nationalism, conservatism, and fascism, with the latter two attempting to challenge the assumptions of Enlightenment thought. The subsequent chapter will explore more contemporary ideologies that challenge the premises of the traditional ideologies discussed in this chapter. KEY CONCEPT BOX 5.1 Enlightenment The Enlightenment, spanning the 17th and 18th centuries, was an intellectual and cultural movement that emphasized the application of a European concept of reason in the pursuit of knowledge and human progress. This movement both contributed to and was influenced by the decline in the authority of the Christian religion. A critic of the Enlightenment in Western political philosophy was the British conservative philosopher Edmund Burke (1729–97), particularly denouncing what many consider its zenith—the French Revolution—in his work from 1790. An ideology is a set of ideas designed to describe the existing political order, present a vision of what the ideal political order should look like, and, if necessary, propose a means to get from what exists to what we want things to be. An ideology therefore contains empirical, semantic, and normative elements. Ideologies are frequently characterized by a call to action, advocating for specific social and political orders and urging people to engage in struggles to achieve these goals. The 20th century is often referred to as the age of ideologies due to the significant impact of regimes rooted in two ideological traditions—communism and fascism. However, it is argued that a more accurate characterization would be to consider the 20th century as the age of ideologies that liberalism strongly opposed. Despite this, it's important to note that liberalism, too, is an ideology. The liberal critiques of fascism and communism reveal a tendency among some liberals to perceive liberalism as somehow transcending the ideological conflicts of the time, although this perception is not entirely accurate. Additionally, all ideologies have different strands or schools, and sometimes there is considerable overlap between one ideology and another. Ideologies are, then, in the words of Festenstein and Kenny (2005, p. 4), “internally pluralistic, contested, complex, and overlapping.” Ideologies both reflect and shape the social and historical contexts in which they arise. The two most influential ideologies since the 19th century have been liberalism and socialism. The emergence of these ideologies during the Industrial Revolution and their peak in the 19th century coincided with the era of European colonialism. This alignment is not coincidental, as both liberalism and socialism mirrored the optimism of the time, where it was believed that human beings could rationally understand and achieve political and economic progress. Additionally, these ideologies gained prominence by being associated with the new social groups formed during the Industrial Revolution, with liberalism being championed by the industrial middle class and socialism by the industrial working class. Liberalism Liberalism is an important ideology because it has been the dominant political tradition in Western countries for many centuries. We have already encountered various facets of liberalism throughout this book, and many of the key Western political thinkers—Hobbes, Locke, Bentham, Mill, Rawls, and Nozick—are in the liberal tradition. The Historical Development of Liberalism Liberalism's origins are often linked to the ascent of a capitalist political economy in 17th-and 18th-century Europe, where theorists developed philosophical defenses of private property. The individualistic political philosophies of Hobbes and Locke play a crucial role in this context. Liberalism, with its long history and diverse manifestations, is challenging to precisely define. The term "liberal" has been applied to political parties across the spectrum, from the right, as seen in Australia with leaders like Tony Abbott and Scott Morrison, to the center-left, exemplified by the Liberal Party of Canada. Its associations vary, being linked with a free market in some countries and state intervention, especially in the United States. In the U.S., Republicans occasionally use the term "liberal" derisively against Democrats. Classical liberalism is influenced significantly by the economic theory of Adam Smith (1723–90) and the social theory of Herbert Spencer (1820–1903). Central to classical liberalism is the idea of limiting the state's role, advocating for minimal government intervention, primarily focused on ensuring internal and external security and enforcing private property rights. This perspective is justified by the belief that the market is the most efficient way to fulfill human needs. Additionally, there is a moral dimension to classical liberalism, asserting that a limited state promotes individual freedom and rewards those who work the hardest. Classical liberalism faced challenges in the late 19th century as the recognition of widespread poverty and the emergence of socialism posed alternatives. In response, liberal thinkers like Thomas Hill Green, Leonard Hobhouse, and John Hobson advocated for a new liberalism that emphasized social reform. New liberals believed in a more positive role for the state, viewing it as necessary to address market inequities. They argued that state intervention, rather than diminishing liberty, increased it by expanding opportunities for individuals to achieve their goals. This new liberalism influenced British Liberal Party politics in the early 20th century, leading to social reform measures. The Liberal Party of Canada, established in 1857, has a long history of promoting center-left policies for over a century and a half. The new liberalism, emphasizing social reform and the positive role of the state, dominated much of the 20th century political landscape, especially under various names like Labour parties in Britain, Australia, and New Zealand. These parties continue to represent the new liberalism in these countries today. However, in the 1970s, a revised version of classical liberalism known as the New Right emerged, challenging new liberalism. Right-wing governments, particularly in the 1980s in Britain, the United States, and Canada, were elected on platforms that reflected aspects of the classical liberal agenda. Intellectual support for this movement came from thinkers like Friedrich Hayek and Robert Nozick, leading to the development of neoliberalism. Liberal Thought The key question regarding liberal ideology revolves around the compatibility of its primary types, namely classical and neoliberalism versus new liberalism. The core tenets of liberalism include liberty, tolerance, individualism, and a specific form of equality. Liberty, seen as an intrinsic good by some liberal thinkers, serves as a central concept. While some view liberty as valuable, others, like John Stuart Mill, see it to self-development, emphasizing the opportunities it creates. The classical liberal tradition, which includes neoliberalism, focuses on negative liberty, emphasizing individual freedom from external constraints, especially those imposed by the state. In contrast, the new liberal tradition prioritizes positive liberty, emphasizing the freedom to pursue self-development, which is believed to necessitate state intervention to safeguard rights and promote equality of opportunity. Critics argue that the new liberalism deviates from "true" liberalism by shifting emphasis from the individual to society. Advocates counter that state intervention is essential for maximizing liberty by creating necessary conditions. Liberty, within the context of classical and neoliberal thinking, is centered on the individual. Rooted in the social contract tradition of Hobbes and Locke, where individuals exist before society is formed, this perspective assumes that individuals are rational actors capable of determining their own best interests. In economic terms, classical and neoliberal ideologies advocate for minimal intervention, trusting that individuals acting as consumers and producers will efficiently achieve economic utility through the "hidden hand" of the market. This individual-centric approach in liberal thought diminishes the community from a unified entity to an aggregation of individuals with conflicting interests. This distinction sparks the modern debate between liberals and communitarians, with the latter criticizing the liberal tradition for basing its principles on a notion of humans in a pre-social state. Communitarians argue that political principles should be derived from actual societies, which provide identity and meaning for individuals. It's important to recognize that classical liberalism and neoliberalism are built on concepts that may not always align with reality. The belief in the myth of equality of opportunity can lead to a lack of awareness regarding the actual existence of sexism, racism, and settler colonialism, along with various structures that privilege certain individuals over others. Historically, such myths have justified the ongoing dominance of predominantly white male property-owners in Western political, economic, and social systems. In the Canadian context, the "new" liberalism is more familiar, while classical liberalism may seem closer to conservatism, a topic discussed later in the chapter. Socialism The term "socialism" first appeared in 1827, evolving as an ideology during the Industrial Revolution with the rise of an industrial working class. While closely linked to working-class parties, socialism distinguishes itself from trade unionism by having broader goals that extend beyond workers to encompass the entire society, aiming for cooperative and egalitarian transformations. Interestingly, many advocates of socialism have originated from the middle classes, facing occasional resistance from working-class organizations. Historical Development In the historical evolution of socialism, Karl Marx is a pivotal figure, but three pre-Marxian thinkers—Claude-Henri Saint-Simon, Charles Fourier, and Robert Owen—are typically regarded as the founders of socialism. Marx labeled these thinkers as utopian because they lacked a practical vision for achieving political change. In contrast, Marx developed a "scientific" theory that not only deemed socialism ethically desirable but also considered it historically inevitable. Marx's ideas have wielded significant influence on global politics, though their relevance may have diminished since the Cold War era. Vladimir Lenin and the Bolsheviks adapted Marx's ideas to fit Russia's conditions, laying the groundwork for the Soviet state after the Russian Revolution in 1917. Subsequently, world socialism became divided into two main camps: communism, focused on the "Third International" of global communist organizations, and social democracy. KEY QUOTE BOX 5.2 Marx’s Vision of Communism In the Communist Manifesto, Marx offered limited insights into the specifics of a future communist society. However, he did mention that as class distinctions disappear and production becomes concentrated on a national scale, the public power would lose its political character. Marx envisioned that if, during the struggle with the bourgeoisie, the proletariat organized itself as a class and became the ruling class through revolution, it would eliminate the old conditions of production by force. In doing so, the proletariat would also abolish the conditions that give rise to class antagonisms and classes in general, thereby ending its own supremacy as a class. This passage suggests Marx's belief that a communist society would emerge through the proletarian revolution, leading to the dissolution of class distinctions and the establishment of a classless society. Canada adopted forms of social democracy early in its history. The first socialist party emerged in 1904, marking the roots of social democracy. Notable socially oriented political parties include the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (CCF), established in 1932, and its later iteration, the New Democratic Party (NDP), formed in 1961. Additionally, Canada has had a Communist Party since 1921, making it the second oldest party in the country after the Liberal Party. From the 19th century into the 20th century, socialism rapidly spread globally and played a central role in decolonizing movements in various countries such as Cuba, India, Vietnam, Cambodia, Indonesia, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Algeria, Angola, Guinea-Bissau, Congo, and Mozambique. These movements were prominent in Asia, the Middle East, Africa, Latin America, the Caribbean, and the Pacific—regions collectively labeled the "Third World" during the Cold War. Key Socialist Principles Despite internal debates among various socialist factions, several core principles are generally consistent within socialism. One fundamental principle is an optimistic view of human nature. Socialists often perceive human nature as malleable, influenced by social, economic, and political conditions. In contrast to the views of liberals and conservatives who see humans as inherently self-seeking and individualistic, socialists argue that these characteristics are socially conditioned and can be altered through cooperation, fellowship, and compassion. The second core principle of socialism is equality, contrasting with liberal views. Socialists advocate for equality of outcome, contending that inequality stems from different positions in a social structure rather than inherent differences in ability. Education, influenced heavily by social class, is a classic example. Socialists also address issues of race and gender, with anti-colonial struggles adopting socialist principles due to the association of liberalism with European colonization. Instances such as famines in Ireland and India during British colonialism illustrate socialist concerns, where local foods were priced based on international market values, rendering them unaffordable for the local population and leading to widespread starvation. Whereas liberals consider inequality a necessary incentive, socialists believe that human nature can be altruistic, to the point where individuals will be willing to work for the good of society even in the absence of material incentives. The third core principle of socialism is community, placing emphasis on cooperation and collective goals over individual pursuits. This communal focus is interconnected with the other two core socialist values—common ownership and equality. The emphasis on community aligns with cultural patterns in many regions, including Africa, Latin America, and Asia, where collectivist principles and beliefs in common ownership of resources have historical roots. Collectivism as a cultural pattern in contrast with individualism, more prevalent in Western Europe, North America, Australia, and New Zealand. Notably, socialism served to express pre-colonial ideas and values in a modern, rational, and scientific framework, making it a relevant and adaptable ideology. Utopianism and Authoritarianism Critics among classical and neoliberals, as well as conservatives, argue that the socialist vision is utopian, unrealistic, and unattainable. According to this perspective, the ideal socialist society, aiming for genuine emancipation and fulfillment within a community, places excessive demands on its citizens. Critics contend that the egalitarianism required by socialism leads to an authoritarian state that must consistently intervene to prevent varying levels of talent and effort from disrupting the envisioned egalitarian balance in society. This viewpoint is expressed, for example, by philosopher Karl Popper in his 1962 work. The Soviet state, perceived as overbearing, was considered a direct outcome of socialist ideas. Joseph Stalin's leadership, characterized by the killing of millions of his own people and disregard for human rights, is cited as an example. Canada officially recognizes the Soviet genocide against the Ukrainian people during the Holodomor, a series of famines from 1932 to 1933 resulting in 3 to 7 million deaths. Other countries also acknowledge the Holodomor as genocide. Fortunately, the authoritarian excesses of Stalin were not replicated in Western Europe, where social democracy, drawing from both socialist and liberal ideas, did not adopt an authoritarian stance. Western European social democracy often incorporates explicit religious dimensions alongside its ideological foundations. Conservatism Conservative thought has historical roots, with elements evident in Plato's defense of intellectual elite rule. However, it gained popularity as a response to the Enlightenment. Unlike liberalism and socialism, which embraced progressive and rationalistic Enlightenment values, conservatism offered a negative reaction. Edmund Burke's critique of the French Revolution in 1789, published in 1790, stands out as a classic text representing conservative thought's response to the Enlightenment. Conservative political movements have exhibited ideological diversity. In many European contexts, they have been historically anti-liberal and reactionary, while in Britain, conservatism has often been influenced by liberalism. The 19th-century British Conservative Party, led by figures like Robert Peel and Benjamin Disraeli, was known for social reform. After 1945, the Conservative Party in Britain largely embraced social democratic ideas until the 1970s, when it shifted towards the influence of the New Right. A similar rightward shift occurred in North America with the elections of Ronald Reagan in the United States and Brian Mulroney in Canada. The New Right, with its focus on reducing state intervention in the free market, aligns more closely with classical liberalism than traditional conservatism. Margaret Thatcher's leadership in Britain, characterized by strong ideology, contrasts with the pragmatism often associated with conservative thought. Despite these differences, the New Right also endorsed some traditional conservative values such as law and order, respect for authority, patriotism, and civic virtue. The Thatcher government, while emphasizing free-market principles, was willing to utilize state power to enforce these conservative values. Conservative Thought A central tenet of conservative beliefs is a resistance to rationalism, a concept rooted in Enlightenment ideals that championed the human ability to construct societies based on rational principles, such as liberty, equality, and fraternity. Rationalists believed in limitless progress in human societies. Michael Oakeshott, a prominent 20th-century conservative, characterized a rationalist as someone who advocates "independence of mind on all occasions, for thought free from obligation to any authority save the authority of reason." Edmund Burke vehemently criticized the rationalist nature of the French Revolution, which aimed to build a new society on abstract principles. Burke, along with conservatives in general, argued that the revolutionaries' pursuit had led to the destruction of longstanding traditions and institutions developed over centuries. Conservatives, like Burke, believed that the social and political world is too intricate to be explained by catchphrases such as the French Revolution's "liberty, equality, fraternity." Instead, they advocated relying on tried-and-tested traditions, seen as repositories of collective societal wisdom accumulated over generations, without often addressing the question of who in society holds the standing to contribute to this "wisdom." The conservative perspective, rooted in an anti-rationalist stance, embraces the idea that society is organic, not mechanical. Unlike a machine with interchangeable parts, society is viewed as a complex organism with interdependent components. The conservative argument emphasizes that altering one part of society can have unpredictable and undesirable effects on other interconnected parts. Edmund Burke, a notable conservative thinker, does not reject the possibility of change but advocates for it to be gradual, moderate, and cautious to preserve what is considered valuable in the social order. Conservatism exhibits a second characteristic tied to anti-rationalism, involving a resistance to change. Conservatives doubt the full understanding of the contemporary social and political landscape, favoring the accumulated wisdom of centuries over abstract reasoning. This skepticism extends to human capacities and is reflected in the advocacy of hierarchy, potentially leading to the dominance of certain demographic groups. While conservatives may not assert the desirability of such dominance, they caution against pursuing equality solely for its own sake. Social and Cultural Conservatism Many conservatives are motivated by a desire to safeguard traditional values in the face of perceived threats from a globalizing culture. Social and cultural conservatism often involves a reluctance to embrace change, with a principle of "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" resonating strongly. This sentiment, reflected in historical political campaigns, emphasizes the preservation of established norms and leaders. Conservatives argue that the familiarity of what is tried and true holds value and should be preserved, as the new and different are not automatically considered improvements. The Conservative Party's name has a complex history. Established in 1867, it was initially known as the federal Conservative Party until 1942 when it changed to the Progressive Conservatives. This name persisted until its merger with the Canadian Alliance Party in 2003, leading to the current name, the Conservative Party of Canada. The party tends to uphold traditional moral values, particularly on issues like same-sex marriage and pro-choice policies, reflecting social conservative attitudes. The Canadian Alliance, rooted in Alberta, and the Conservative Party under Andrew Scheer from 2017 to 2020 also endorsed social conservative principles. Erin O'Toole became the new leader of the party in 2020. Neoconservatism Neoconservatism gained significant influence during George W. Bush's presidency in the United States, particularly evident in the 2003 invasion of Iraq. It is crucial to distinguish between traditional conservatives and neoconservatives, despite some overlaps. A key difference is that many neoconservatives, according to Irving Kristol, initially identified as liberals before shifting towards the Republican Party in the late 1970s. Furthermore, neoconservative policies often deviate from conservative values, including tradition, ritual, hierarchy, small government, fiscal austerity, devotion to place, and homage to the past. Irving Kristol outlines American neoconservatism with four key principles. Firstly, he emphasizes the importance of patriotism as a natural and healthy sentiment that should be encouraged. Casting doubts on one's own country is seen as morally wrong. Secondly, Kristol opposes the idea of world government, arguing that it can lead to world tyranny, and advocates for maintaining America's ability to act independently. Thirdly, he asserts that statesmen should possess the ability to distinguish friends from enemies, advocating for a firm stance against evil actors without resorting to appeasement or compromise. According to Fukuyama, what unified neoconservatives was their shared opposition to communism and their criticism of liberals who, during crucial times, undermined American resolve. Kristol's fourth principle in neoconservatism asserts that, as a superpower, the United States is governed by special rules in international politics. He contends that the "national interest" is not confined to geographical considerations, except for mundane matters like trade and environmental regulation. According to Kristol, a larger nation like the U.S. has more extensive interests, including ideological interests. This implies that aiding fellow democracies or "friends," such as Israel, is crucial to advancing U.S. goals. Neoconservatives advocate for the use of military power to pursue American objectives, with a particular focus on the Middle East as the primary area of U.S. interests. Although most neoconservatives supported the 2003 Iraq War, not all did. Neoconservatism influenced the Bush administration's foreign policy but did not solely determine it. President Bush catered to diverse constituencies, including country club Republicans, realists, corporate interests, evangelicals, political strategists, right-wing Catholics, and neoconservative Jews aligned with Israel's Likud party. This indicates a multifaceted approach in shaping American foreign policy during that time. Historians and political scientists have criticized neoconservatives, characterizing their vision for the United States as a blend of imperial hubris and naive optimism. Strategic miscalculations are evident, such as viewing Saddam Hussein as a modern-day Hitler and advocating for his removal on moral rather than strategic grounds, with little consideration for potential consequences. Additionally, many neoconservatives erroneously believed that U.S. models of democracy and capitalism could be forcibly applied to fundamentally different societies like Iraq and Afghanistan. Their legacy includes contributing to the severe financial crisis in the United States, comparable to the Great Depression, as noted by MacDonald in 2009. Former President Donald J. Trump's alignment with neoconservatism is questioned based on his actions, particularly the January 2020 assassination of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani. Although this move drew comparisons to hawkish officials from the George W. Bush era, such as Dick Cheney, notable differences emerge. Trump lacked advisors advocating for war with Iran, and he quickly shifted to calling for peace and negotiations, a departure from Bush's approach in Iraq. Trump also showed little interest in direct military confrontation, regime change, or invading and occupying Iran. Similar tendencies were observed in his interactions with North Korea, where he engaged in both insults and praises with leader Kim Jong-un. Trump's military strategy seemed devoid of an ideological master plan, leading to observations that his actions reflected personal leadership rather than adherence to Republican principles. Post-2020 election, Trump refused to concede, finally acknowledging defeat in January 2021 while falsely claiming electoral fraud. His dissemination of false information resulted in a Twitter ban. Nationalism Nationalism is an ideology that primarily originated in Europe, and its development is debated, with some linking it to urbanization, secularization, mass literacy, and the formation of modern nation-states. Others argue that nationalism has roots in much earlier periods of human history. While theorists often focus on Europe, communities with linguistic, spiritual, cultural, and territorial bonds exist worldwide. Although terms like nations and nationalism originated in a European context, the communities they describe are considered universal. Michael Ignatieff, a Canadian political scientist, provides a concise definition of nationalism: Political Doctrine: Nationalism, as a political doctrine, asserts that the global population is divided into nations, and each of these nations has the right to self-determination. This self-determination can manifest either as self-governing units within existing states or as independent nation-states. Cultural Ideal: As a cultural ideal, nationalism claims that, among various identities, the nation is the primary source of belonging for individuals. It emphasizes the significance of national identity in shaping one's sense of belonging. Moral Ideal: Nationalism, as a moral ideal, promotes an ethic of heroic sacrifice and justifies the use of violence in defense of one's nation against internal or external enemies. The moral, cultural, and political claims of nationalism are interlinked, where the moral claim of defending nations through violence relies on the cultural belief that national identity uniquely satisfies the needs for security and belonging. The political idea that people should strive for self-determination is rooted in the cultural claim that only nations can fulfill these essential needs. The Academic Study of Nationalism The study of nations and nationalism is categorized into three schools: primordialists, modernists and perennialists, and ethno-symbolists. Primordialists view the nation as a natural and inherent phenomenon in human relationships. Sociologists like Clifford Geertz and Edward Shils, particularly in the 1950s and 1960s, underscored the strength of "primordial attachment" to the nation, emphasizing it as a community with distinct characteristics that require preservation. From this perspective, nations can be identified many centuries, or even millennia, ago. Contrary to primordialists, modernists perceive the nation as a socially constructed entity rather than a natural one. They argue that nations are often invented by elites seeking power within a state, and nationalism is employed as a tool to control and manipulate the masses. According to this perspective, nationalism emerged during the Industrial Revolution when people migrated from rural areas to urban centers for work. Scholars like Ernest Gellner assert that these urban dwellers, having left behind village identities and cultural traditions, needed a new shared identity. Nationalism then served to unite diverse populations under a common "high culture." This culture had some similarities with traditional folk cultures but was also distinct. The upheaval of urban life, loss of former identities, and a sense of vulnerability contributed to the attractiveness of the national symbols and narratives promoted by elites. Other notable modernists include Paul Brass, Benedict Anderson (credited with coining the term "imagined communities" for nations), and Tom Nairn, who developed an economic modernist model based on Marxism. The perennialists, akin to modernists, believe that nations are constructed entities, but they do not necessarily attribute their origins to the Industrial Revolution. Instead, perennialists take a long-term perspective, examining how societies endure and decline. Liah Greenfeld notes that most societies existed for relatively short periods, typically not more than a few dozen generations. She identifies only three populations—the Chinese, Indians, and Jews—that have preserved their cultural integrity, identity, and core values over the intervening 2,500 years. According to Greenfeld, other societies, nations, ethnic communities, and city-states have experienced rises and falls. She sees nationalism as being little different from other forms of group association. Greenfeld asserts that nations in some cases were created before industrialization. In England she traces the birth of the nation to the creation of the Protestant Church of England under King Henry VIII. Later nations developed in preindustrial rural Germany in the early 19th century and agrarian Russia in the 18th and 19th centuries. In these cases, other forms of association, such as religion and kingship, helped to bind individuals together as coherent “peoples” (Greenfeld, 1993). The ethno-symbolists form the third group of nationalism theorists, contending that nations are constructed and invented, but not necessarily by elites. Anthony D. Smith, a prominent figure in this school of thought, argues that many nations are based on pre-existing ethnic groups, each possessing a distinct identity and history. Smith's key contribution is his emphasis on "ethnies," which he defines as named human populations with shared ancestry myths, histories, cultures, an association with specific territory, and a sense of solidarity. Not all ethnies evolve into nations, but many nations are derived from ethnies, particularly "ethnic cores" that possess characteristics enabling them to absorb and assimilate other ethnies, incorporating them into an emerging nation. Unlike the nation it may eventually become, a core ethnie needs to selectively adopt new elements from foreign groups through "controlled culture contact." As the ethnic core expands and assimilates other ethnies, it integrates their elements into its growing ethnic (and ultimately proto-national) culture. This process is dynamic, involving the selective borrowing and assimilation of cultural elements to shape the evolving identity of the emerging nation. History and Further Distinctions The search for national identity originated as a European phenomenon, initially focusing on the Italian and German quests for unification, achieved in 1861 and 1871, respectively. Following World War I, the concept of national self-determination gained prominence, particularly as articulated by U.S. President Woodrow Wilson in the post-war peace settlement. Post-World War II, European colonies in various regions, including Asia, Africa, the Pacific, the Caribbean, and the Middle East, sought and largely achieved independence. However, indigenous peoples in settler states were not able to secure their independence during the same period. In more recent times, there has been a resurgence of nationalism, particularly in Eastern Europe, following the collapse of the Soviet Union. Hans Kohn, a political scientist, distinguished between civic and ethnic nationalism. Civic nationalism involves loyalty to the institutions and values of a specific political community. In contrast, ethnic nationalism entails loyalty to a shared heritage rooted in culture, language, or religion. Civic nationalism is inclusive, welcoming anyone who subscribes to the values and institutions of a community, while ethnic nationalism is exclusive as membership is inherited and not a result of rational choice. Civic nationalism, due to its inclusive nature, appears to pose less of a threat to political order compared to exclusive ethnic nationalism. However, the distinction between the two can be nuanced because even within civic nationalism, the political community with loyalty to institutions and values may have borders that require protection. The promotion of certain national "values" can potentially be ethnocentric or even racist. An example of this controversy is seen in the Quebec government's imposition of a "Quebec values" test for new immigrants in 2020, aimed at assessing their integration into the province's dominant white francophone culture. Similarly, disputes arose with the passing of Bill 21, which prohibited provincial employees from wearing conspicuous religious clothing, such as the hijab, turban, or kippah, while at work. Despite its negative reputation, nationalism does not necessarily lead to division and conflict. Yael Tamir argues that civic nationalism can and should serve as the central force binding modern democratic states together. Civic associations, fostering common political identities, play a crucial role in building trust and a sense of belonging. Tamir advocates for a "three-way partnership among nationalism, liberalism, and democracy" to counter the rise of exclusivist nationalism. Contemporary political philosophers, including Tamir, call for a revival of a collectivist spirit, moving away from viewing the state solely as a utilitarian provider of services. Tamir emphasizes that civic nationalism, rooted in inclusive principles, has the potential to unite people rather than dividing them based on identity. She contends that states should actively promote nationalism to prevent the public sphere from becoming a "social, political, economic, and cultural vacuum." Civic, inclusive, and unifying nationalism is seen as essential to promoting social solidarity and addressing growing social alienation. Contemporary manifestations of nationalism cover everything from open and inclusive forms of civil participation to violent, ethnic, or race-based forms that are hostile to perceived outsiders. The rise of populism has also heralded the return of race-based forms of national identity, a topic that we discuss later in this chapter (see pp. 120–121). Extreme forms of nationalism can also be compared to fascism, which we outline in the next section. Fascism Fascism, a 20th-century ideology, was notably associated with regimes led by Benito Mussolini in Italy and Adolf Hitler in Germany. While its roots were in Europe during the 1930s and 1940s, fascism gained popularity in various countries worldwide, including Austria, Portugal, Spain, Slovakia, Serbia, Hungary, Norway, and Greece. It also extended to Latin America, where forms of fascist rule emerged in Argentina, Bolivia, and Chile. Fascism is characterized by extreme nationalism and embraces a set of racial, social, and moral ideas. Rejecting intellectualism, fascism emphasizes action, instinct, and emotion. For this reason, scholars looking for texts to use as primary sources have had to rely mainly on the works of the Italian fascist Giovanni Gentile (1875–1944) and Hitler’s Mein Kampf (written in 1926). Fascism is, above all, anti-Enlightenment, opposing ideas such as liberalism, democracy, reason, and individualism. It is also profoundly anti-Marxist, although Nazism was seen as a form of nationalized (as opposed to international) socialism. Although certain elements of fascism recall conservatism, in particular its emphasis on the organic state, fascism is also revolutionary. Fascism’s opposition to liberalism and individualism stems from the belief that the community creates individuals—without it, they are nothing. In fascist theory, the state gives meaning to individual lives; hence individuals should be subservient to it. This is what justifies the totalitarian state in which the individual is subsumed in the interests of the state’s goals. Fascism promotes the belief in the superiority of certain individuals and emphasizes an elitist perspective. The masses are considered ignorant and in need of elite leaders, often a single powerful figure like a Führer or Duce. In German fascism, this emphasis on inequality took on a racial aspect, with "Aryans" seen as superior to other groups, particularly Jews, Roma ("Gypsies"), and Africans. Militant nationalism aimed at establishing the dominance of the "master race" globally, with war viewed as virtuous and character-building in pursuit of racial supremacy. KEY CONCEPT BOX 5.3 Elitism in Political Thought The concept of elitism is multifaceted and has different interpretations in various ideological traditions. Classical elite theorists in Chapter 1 presented an empirical theory, suggesting that elites will persist regardless of democratic ideals, without necessarily advocating for elite rule. In fascism and conservatism, elitism is often used in a normative sense, asserting that rule by an elite is not only inevitable but also desirable. While National Socialism (Nazism) connected elitism with racial connotations, conservatism has not necessarily adopted this aspect. KEY CONCEPT BOX 5.4 Nazism and the Biological State Racist and anti-Semitic ideas have historical roots predating the Nazi era, with origins traced back to the 19th century. Figures like Houston Stewart Chamberlain identified deep racial antagonism between "Aryans" and "Semites." Eugenic theories, promoting the gradual "perfection" of humanity through selective breeding and sterilization, were advocated by individuals such as Sir Francis Galton, Charles Davenport in the United States, and Wilhelm Schallmayer in Germany. Nazi anti-Semitism was unique in its ability to redefine evil, reconceptualizing race relations by portraying Germans as the pinnacle of human development and Jews as dangerous "racial aliens." The Nazi regime twisted ethics, altering definitions of good and evil, allowing for what is now judged as heinous crimes. According to Peter Haas, the Germans committed these acts not because they were inherently evil, but because they understood ethics in different terms during that era. Yehuda Bauer characterizes the Nazi project as the most radical and revolutionary attempt at changing the world in history. Despite Jews posing no actual threat, a racial ethic portrayed them as demonic, leading to their inevitable destruction. Bauer emphasizes that no genocide before or since has been so entirely based on myths, hallucinations, and abstract ideology, executed through rational and pragmatic means. Neo-fascism Racist political parties, often labeled as neo-fascist or ultra-right, are experiencing a resurgence in various countries, especially in Europe. These parties adopt anti-immigrant positions, blood and soil ideologies, and explicit racism. Neo-fascist movements emerged post-World War II, gaining better organization in the 1960s. In recent times, manifestations of neo-fascism have appeared in Italy, Greece, Slovakia, the United Kingdom, Bolivia, and India, with several parties becoming strong and electorally viable, though few openly identify as fascist. Greece's Golden Dawn capitalized on public dissatisfaction with the establishment following the economic crisis of 2008. In 2012, the party became the third largest in Greece, securing about 7% support and parliamentary seats under the leadership of Nikos Michaloliakos, the party's "supreme Führer." However, by 2019, the party's support had declined as many Greeks opted for less extreme alternatives, such as the centre-right New Democracy Party. Italy's CasaPound is openly pro-Mussolini and named after the American poet Ezra Pound, presenting an agenda that is anti-immigrant, occasionally anti-Semitic, but claims to be socially liberal, supporting causes like same-sex marriage and abortion rights. The movement has been involved in violent incidents, including the murder of immigrants by a CasaPound sympathizer in 2011. CasaPound is known for innovative protest activities, such as hanging mannequins throughout Rome in 2006 to address the housing crisis and occupying the European Union's office in Rome in 2012 to protest on behalf of Italian miners. Despite their anti-immigration stance, they argue against exploitation of immigrant labor, framing it as a return to slavery on supposedly "progressive" grounds. Support for neo-fascism tends to fluctuate in response to perceived social and economic issues. Extreme parties often provide simplistic solutions to complex problems, blaming outsiders for issues like unemployment, housing costs, the reduction of the welfare state, and economic challenges. The rise and fall of these parties are influenced by how mainstream parties respond to these concerns. Neo-fascist movements become more appealing during times of crisis, and in Italy's case, the rise of CasaPound correlated with high youth unemployment, negative economic growth, and widespread dissatisfaction with established political parties. Neo-fascist parties were able to frame themselves as revolutionary anti-neo-liberal forces during this period of crisis, gaining support by capitalizing on discontent. Wendy Brown, a political philosopher, asserts that economic crises, neoliberalism, and the emergence of the hard-right in Western societies are interconnected. She identifies a span of three decades marked by neoliberal attacks on democracy, equality, and societal structures. According to Brown, these assaults have contributed to widespread discontent, providing a backdrop for the rise of white nationalist authoritarian political movements. She suggests that the anger of those who feel economically abandoned and racially resentful has been mobilized, playing a role in the surge of such political formations. In essence, Brown sees a relationship between economic upheaval, neoliberal policies, and the growth of far-right movements. Enzo Traverso suggests that modern right-wing groups should be viewed as "postfascist," acknowledging that they may perceive themselves as contemporary versions of older parties, yet they differ significantly from the movements of the 1930s. Traverso characterizes them as a phenomenon in transition, still undergoing transformation and lacking crystallization. He highlights the erratic, unstable, and often contradictory ideological content of these parties, noting that they don't consistently align with historical examples. Traditionally, fascism positioned itself against communism and the left, but with the decline of the left, these postfascist movements have shifted their focus toward Muslims, Jews, and people of color. The rise of concerns about a "great replacement" of white Christian Europeans through immigration and multiculturalism, as propagated by figures like Renaud Camus, has become a major theme for these groups. Traverso suggests that addressing this anger and fostering a more tolerant and peaceful civil society will be a challenge for democratic governments. Anarchism Anarchism, with roots dating back to the 19th century, shares similarities with both liberal and socialist traditions. The anarchist tradition, closely associated with socialism, has various forms. Influential figures in anarchist thought include Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (1809–65), Mikhail Bakunin (1814–76), and Peter Kropotkin (1842–1921). These anarchists were actively engaged in the socialist International Working Men's Association, participating in debates, and often conflicting with figures such as Marx. Anarchists share a fundamental opposition to the state, which they perceive as an illegitimate and even criminal organization that unlawfully wields force over individuals and society, curbing people's liberty. However, there is a debate within anarchism regarding the extent of opposition – whether it is solely directed at the state or encompasses government and any form of authority structure. Anarchists generally question whether their opposition is confined to the state alone or extends to government and all forms of authority. If it includes the latter, then anarchism embraces an optimistic view of human nature. Despite this, there are varying perspectives among anarchist thinkers on human nature. Some argue that human nature is inherently good, while others believe it is socially determined and can be influenced by the social and political environment. Regardless of these nuances, anarchists commonly assert that in an anarchist society, people would act in a morally correct manner and fulfill their responsibilities without the need for external authority or coercion. Anarchism, though having a minor influence in mainstream politics, serves as a valuable tool for critiquing power dynamics in the modern state and deserves further examination. Pritchard (2020) proposes an anarchist method for approaching power, suggesting a model that he believes can address environmental issues. Instead of viewing power as a pyramid with a top-down flow, Pritchard suggests conceptualizing it as a dynamic matrix where power continually shifts in quantitative and qualitative terms. The overall power of individuals and groups is seen as a combination of coercive power, social power, and power-from-within. Pritchard argues that survival as a species depends on limiting coercive power, leveraging social power, and distributing power widely. Pritchard advocates for anarchism as an emancipatory movement capable of facilitating collective decision-making and challenging the state-based hierarchies of power commonly accepted in political science. His emancipatory vision of anarchism emphasizes the use of modern technology to unleash humanity's creative and sustainable potential. Pritchard expresses concern that, alternatively, technology could be wielded to exacerbate inequality and harm the planet. He underscores the pivotal moment society faces, emphasizing the need to choose a direction that aligns with the positive potential of anarchism rather than the negative consequences of unchecked technological advancement. Anarchism, in comparison to other ideologies discussed, has had limited direct impact on modern politics. Its notable influence was observed between the 1880s and the 1930s, with anarchists briefly holding power during the Spanish Civil War (Vincent, 1995, p. 117). In subsequent years, anarchist tendencies surfaced in the 1960s counterculture, student protests, and more recently in environmental and anti-globalization movements. Anarchism is gaining popularity among those disillusioned with the modern state and its alignment with big business. While it may not exert significant political influence, it holds normative sway, especially among those protesting corporations and the state, as they adopt its oppositional views of hierarchical power. Is Populism an Ideology? The early 21st century has witnessed the emergence of various movements and political figures labeled as "populist." Populism, while not a distinct ideology, is a term that signifies these movements and candidates' tendency to align themselves with "the people." Populist movements often assert that certain institutions or groups have harmed the interests of the people and need to be ousted from power (Weyland, 2001). Jan-Werner Müller identifies two key characteristics of populism. First, populists position themselves as adversaries to "elites," whether foreign or domestic, portraying these elites as detached from the people and working against their interests (Müller, 2016). Second, populism is considered "anti- pluralist," meaning that populist leaders claim to represent the entire people. According to Müller, this anti-pluralism makes populism inherently potentially anti-democratic, as most democratic societies rely on the principle of pluralism, acknowledging diverse perspectives and groups (Müller, 2016). Cas Mudde, another prominent scholar of populism, characterizes populism as a "thin" ideology that can blend with other ideologies, allowing it to align with both right or left-wing ideologies. Populist movements may encompass a spectrum of beliefs, ranging from ultranationalism to inclusive left-wing activism, environmentalism, or climate change denial (Mudde, 2004). More recently, populism has been conceptualized as a mode of representation, defined by Benjamin Moffitt as "a political style that is performed, embodied, and enacted across a variety of political and cultural contexts" (2016). Populism, to some extent, disrupts traditional distinctions between "left" and "right." Populist figures that are commonly associated with the right include Donald Trump in the United States, Geert Wilders in the Netherlands, and possibly Maxime Bernier in Canada, who formed the People's Party during the 2019 federal election (though it did not win any seats in Parliament). On the left, examples include Venezuela's Chavistas and, to a lesser extent, politicians like Bernie Sanders in the United States (Hawkins, 2010). Within the social conservative right, certain populist parties in European or Western settler states target ethnic minorities and/or Indigenous peoples. They claim to represent a silent majority by breaking taboos, denouncing identity politics, and challenging political correctness. Populist leaders can unite followers by embracing what is termed "the solidarity of the dirty secret," openly expressing what "we all secretly think but feel guilty about." Nostalgia for a mythical golden age, characterized by secure jobs, cultural homogeneity, less contested national identity and patriotism, and domestic economic control, is often associated with these populist movements. Rising immigration and foreign investment may be criticized, and multiculturalism may be viewed with suspicion as supporters romanticize a supposedly more certain, secure, and moral past. Concerns or frustrations about perceived "foreign" influences are not exclusive to the right. In Europe, for instance, many populists identifying as nationalists criticize the European Union and its policies. Greece's left-wing Syriza movement, for example, blames the EU for imposed austerity programs. Populist movements in various European countries also fault the EU for policies enabling the entry of refugees and other migrants. In Latin America, populists often blame the United States for its historical intervention in the region. Populists, spanning the political spectrum, claim to economically represent those adversely affected by neoliberal reforms and the increasing globalization of the world economy. The impact of globalization, characterized by reduced regulation in the flow of capital, goods, and services, is a common target for populists. Verbeek and Zaslove (2017) emphasize that populists often focus on those deemed losers in globalization, addressing issues such as income disparities, housing access, employment security, and social welfare benefits. Globalization has been associated with the emergence of new forms of inequality within and between states, accentuating divides between various groups, including capital and labor, skilled and unskilled workers, and cosmopolitans versus communitarians. Rodrik (2018) notes that this growing inequality is not accidental, as the model of globalization is built on a fundamental and corrosive asymmetry, with trade agreements favoring the needs of capital. This has led to stark contrasts and major structural problems within many countries. Left and right forms of populism may converge in the reliance on a charismatic leader, a common feature that contributes to the success of populist parties. These leaders play a crucial role in establishing emotional connections with the audience, enhancing the party's electoral prospects. Most populist parties, though not all, are led by charismatic figures who can captivate the public's imagination and forge a special bond that mainstream politicians often struggle to achieve. The relationship between populist leaders and followers is marked by an appeal rooted in a sense of commonality, emphasizing shared fears and values, rather than solely relying on the exchange of clear political promises. Theorists examining populism explore whether distinct "types" or categories can be identified to better understand and predict populist behavior. One proposed classification distinguishes between "inclusive" populism, prevalent in Latin America, and "exclusive" populism, common in Europe (Mudde & Kaltwasser, 2013). Inclusive populism aims to broaden access to the state and its benefits, particularly for those with lower socio-economic status who were historically excluded. For instance, the populism of former Bolivian leader Evo Morales is seen as inclusive as it includes Indigenous persons and rural populations. On the other hand, exclusive populism, exemplified by France's National Rally (formerly the National Front), defines the white French population as "the people" and views historically marginalized groups like Muslims and/or people of color as targets and threats to the people. The distinction between "exclusive populism" and "inclusive populism" appears to be meaningful, as the power and status of out-groups can impact their vulnerability to populist regimes. "Exclusive populism" may pose more significant risks to marginalized groups, while "inclusive populism" might offer opportunities to expand access to power and resources for disadvantaged individuals. However, skeptics argue that if populism undermines democratic institutions, any gains may be temporary. The case of Venezuela is cited as an example, where "inclusive" populism led to an authoritarian regime under Nicolás Maduro, who clung to power through electoral fraud and disregarded democratic election results in 2019. The question of whether populism qualifies as an ideology is debated among scholars, but many acknowledge that populism impacts societies similarly to historical ideologies. It carries significant implications for the organization of politics and economies. Populism incorporates identifiable ideas, such as emphasis on "the people" and suspicion of "elites" and "foreigners," as defined by scholars like Müller and Mudde. Despite differing opinions on these ideas, they undeniably influence the behavior of numerous political actors in the contemporary world. Furthermore, populism is expected to persist in the foreseeable future. LIST OF KEY TERMS Authoritarian-A form of rule that restricts personal liberty and is not accountable to the public. Civic nationalism-Loyalty to the institutions and values of a particular political community; sometimes presented as a more moderate form of nationalism. Classical liberalism-Developed in the 18th and 19th centuries, this theory promotes limiting the state’s role in political, economic, and social life. It calls for the state to do little except ensuring internal and external security and enforcing private property rights. In this view, the market is the most effective means of meeting human needs, while morally speaking, a limited state is seen to maximize individual freedom and reward those who work hardest. Conservatism-A political theory advocating traditional inherited values and methods of achieving political, economic, and social objectives. Conservatives have been opposed to radical change and prefer continuity and preservation of established norms, procedures, and institutions. They favour gradual incremental approaches if change is necessary. Conservatism can also imply distrust of government expansion and a belief in limited government, low taxes, and reduced social spending. Emancipation-A normative aspiration to liberate people from unfair economic, social, and political conditions, a common theme in critical theory. Enlightenment-The European intellectual and cultural movement that emphasized the use of reason in the search for knowledge and human progress. Ethnic nationalism-Loyalty to a shared inheritance based on culture, language, or religion. Nationalism-In politics and international relations, the doctrine or ideology according to which “the nation” is entitled to political autonomy, usually in a state of its own. Neoconservatism-A political theory developed in the United States that focuses on the expansion of US military power to accomplish democratic regime change and other goals to further US primacy. Neoconservatives also value patriotism and the ability to distinguish between allies and rivals internationally and tend to distrust international institutions like the United Nations. New Liberalism-A version of liberalism that advocates a more positive role for the state than classical liberalism. It argues that the state, in correcting the inequities of the market, can increase liberty by creating greater opportunities for individuals to achieve their goals. Populism-A political approach in which leaders, often heads of government and top executive branch officials, make direct appeals to “the people” and seek to develop direct political ties with the masses. self-determination-The principle (embodying elements of both democracy and nationalism) that “peoples” (nations) have the right to determine their own political future. social Darwinism-Darwin’s theory of natural selection as applied to social life; the idea that it is a law of nature that individuals or groups with the characteristics best suited to a particular environment will survive to reproduce while those less suited will die out. This theory was used to justify a laissez-faire approach to social policy. Utopian-An ideal situation that does not exist but can be aimed for. Some see the search for utopia as a worthwhile exercise to expand the limits of human imagination; others see it as a recipe for illiberal, authoritarian, and even totalitarian societies.