Search

Begin New Search Topic Ideology Political Geography North America

21. Fear Thy Neighbor. Radicalization and Jihadist Attacks in the West

Author:
Lorenzo Vidino, Francesco Marone, and Eva Entenmann
Publication Date:
06-2017
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Italian Institute for International Political Studies (ISPI)
Abstract:
Over the last three years Europe and North America have been hit by an unprecedented wave of terrorist attacks perpetrated by individuals motivated by jihadist ideology. Who are the individuals who have carried out these attacks? Were they born and raised in the West? Or were they an “imported threat”, refugees and migrants? How did they radicalize? Were they well educated and integrated, or social outcasts? Did they act alone? What were their connections to the Islamic State? The answers to these and other questions have large implications for our understanding of the threat facing us and, consequently, help us design sounder policy solutions built on empirical evidence. This study, the first of its kind, seeks to analyze the demographic profile, radicalization trajectories and connections to the Islamic State of all the individuals who have carried out attacks.
Topic:
Radicalization, Refugees, Islamic State, Ideology, and Jihad
Political Geography:
Europe and North America

22. Challengers from the Sidelines: Understanding America’s Violent Far-Right

Author:
Arie Perliger
Publication Date:
01-2013
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
The Combating Terrorism Center at West Point
Abstract:
In the last few years, and especially since 2007, there has been a dramatic rise in the number of attacks and violent plots originating from individuals and groups who self-identify with the far-right of American politics. These incidents cause many to wonder whether these are isolated attacks, an increasing trend, part of increasing societal violence, or attributable to some other condition. To date, however, there has been limited systematic documentation and analysis of incidents of American domestic violence. This study provides a conceptual foundation for understanding different far-right groups and then presents the empirical analysis of violent incidents to identify those perpetrating attacks and their associated trends. Through a comprehensive look at the data, this study addresses three core questions: (1) What are the main current characteristics of the violence produced by the far right? (2) What type of far-right groups are more prone than others to engage in violence? How are characteristics of particular far-right groups correlated with their tendency to engage in violence? (3) What are the social and political factors associated with the level of far-right violence? Are there political or social conditions that foster or discourage violence? It is important to note that this study concentrates on those individuals and groups who have actually perpetuated violence and is not a comprehensive analysis of the political causes with which some far-right extremists identify. While the ability to hold and appropriately articulate diverse political views is an American strength, extremists committing acts of violence in the name of those causes undermine the freedoms that they purport to espouse.
Topic:
Terrorism, Violent Extremism, Ideology, Far Right, and Recruitment
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

23. Remuneration vs. Reelection: A Senatorial Balancing Act

Author:
Jim F. Couch, Brett A. King, and Taylor P. Stevenson
Publication Date:
01-2007
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
The Cato Journal
Institution:
The Cato Institute
Abstract:
Unique events often give rise to other unique events. Such was the case of Hurricane Katrina—the costliest and most destructive natural disaster in U.S. history. The resulting casualties and staggering damage estimates from the savage storm in late August 2005, led the U.S. Senate to vote overwhelmingly (92 to 6) against a Senate pay raise. Most senators apparently felt that voters would not look kindly on a Senate pay raise given the devastation caused by Katrina. The Senate vote was largely symbolic because the House of Representatives was not going to take a vote on rescinding a pay raise for members of Congress. Thus, senators voting against the raise knew their votes would resonate well with voters but have no impact on the annual congressional pay raise sanctioned by law. Of the six senators who did vote for the pay raise, five—James Jeffords (I-Vt.), Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii), Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), Richard Lugar (RInd.), and Kit Bond (R-Mo.)—were long-time incumbents whose seats were not threatened, and one—Paul Sarbanes (D-Md.)—was about to retire. Typically, votes cast by members of Congress are relatively easy to predict. The empirical analysis of congressional voting patterns suggests that measures of ideology and party affiliation play a decisive role in explaining overall voting behavior. A vote on congressional pay, however, is not typical. It creates a dilemma for lawmakers by pitting two margins of self-interest against each other: pecuniary gains and reelection. Senators are clearly made better off by not opposing annual pay raises—salaries have increased from $98,400 in 1990 to $165,200 in 2006. Yet, those increases are likely to irritate voters and could harm a senator’s chances for reelection. In this article, we examine those conflicts of interest and how they affect voting behavior in the case of senatorial pay raises. It is often reported that cooperation among politicians, or bipartisanship, is a thing of the past. However, our results suggest that at least in the case of the Senate, when it comes to an issue as controversial as a pay increase, senators are fully capable of cooperating. More vulnerable senators (in terms of their probability of reelection) are allowed to vote against a pay raise, knowing that those in a more secure position can vote for the increase. The more vulnerable senators likely compensate senators who take the unpopular position of voting in favor of the pay increase with favorable votes on future legislation.
Topic:
Elections, Domestic Politics, Ideology, and Voting Behavior
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America