Search

Begin New Search Topic Liberalism Political Geography United States of America

1. Combating Populism: A Toolkit for Liberal Democratic Actors

Author:
Andrea Kendall-Taylor and Carisa Nietsche
Publication Date:
03-2020
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center for a New American Security
Abstract:
The rise of populism in Europe and the United States is well documented. Although studies may disagree about the relative importance of populism’s drivers, there is broad consensus that rising inequality, declining bonds to established traditional parties, increasing salience of identity politics, and economic grievance have played a role in fueling populism’s rise. Although populism is a symptom of democracy’s larger problems, the strategies and tactics populist parties and leaders use also provide their own, direct threat to liberal democracy. Many of the tactics that populist leaders use weaken democratic institutions and constraints on executive power. Populism is also detrimental to democracy because it exacerbates political polarization, which makes it hard for democracy to effectively function. As societies grow more polarized, people become willing to tolerate abuses of power and sacrifice democratic principles if doing so advances their side’s interests and keeps the other side out of power.1 The polarization that populism fuels, in other words, increases the risk of democratic decline. This report offers recommendations for combating populism. It translates key findings from cutting-edge academic research in the political science, political psychology, sociology, and communications disciplines into practical, evidence-based recommendations. The first set of recommendations is intended to equip political parties, politicians, and candidates to create a political context more conducive to the success of liberal democratic actors. Research shows that context matters—although many people may hold populist attitudes, these attitudes must be activated by the political context to translate into votes for populist leaders.
Topic:
Politics, Democracy, Populism, Liberalism, and Polarization
Political Geography:
Europe, North America, and United States of America

2. International Security and Human Rights: an Examination through Critical Cosmopolitarianism and Offensive Liberalism Approaches / Seguridad internacional y Derechos Humanos: una reflexión a partir delos aportes del cosmopolitismo crítico y el liberalismo ofensivo

Author:
María Eugenia Cardinale
Publication Date:
06-2017
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal on International Security Studies (RESI)
Institution:
International Security Studies Group (GESI) at the University of Granada
Abstract:
This paper will examine two theoretical perspectives about International Security, through the theoretical framework of IR (International Relations) Debates. The focus will be on “thin cosmopolitarianism” and offensive liberalism. Both approaches emphases the linkage between international security and human rights as the core of ideas and practices in the field. International Security has a central role in IR contemporary debates and within them has emerged proposals that pursue the aim of presenting innovative forms and contents for security. Among those approaches experts highlights critical views of cosmopolitarianism and a specific form of liberalism called offensive or interventionist, usually associated with USA security policies. Particularly, this last perspective has not received enough attention in Spanish IR literature. Therefore, the aim of this paper is to review, to compare and to call into question both perspectives, considering that as a basis for analyze international security-human rights relationship.
Topic:
International Relations, Human Rights, International Security, and Liberalism
Political Geography:
Europe, Spain, and United States of America

3. What a Real Liberal Foreign Policy Would Look Like

Author:
Jeffrey Lewis
Publication Date:
06-2015
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies
Abstract:
Chris Murphy, Brian Schatz, and Martin Heinrich — three Democratic members of Congress — have written an essay in Foreign Affairs titled, “Principles for a Progressive Foreign Policy.” It is, of course, predictably, terrible. My colleagues are already forming up. Being a good progressive, I can’t resist embroiling myself in the coming silliness. What really bothers me about the essay is that, despite the title, there are no “principles” to be found anywhere in the text. Just some well-worn clichés (a “new Marshall Plan”) and anodyne recommendations (consult with allies). The essay does not offer a principle that might distinguish those of us on the left from our friends on the right or a principle that might link our domestic and foreign policies. That’s a pretty important thing if we hope that future Democratic administrations will be able to articulate a strategy that amounts to more than “Don’t do stupid shit.” As it happens, I believe there are such principles — or at least there are for lapsed philosophers like me. My very American strand of liberalism — and I prefer the phrase “liberalism” to “progressivism,” given my choice in philosophers — is defined by the work of the late John Rawls. He argued that justice is the first virtue of social institutions, and his works, A Theory of Justice and “Justice as Fairness,” made arguments about what a just society should look like. One particular principle stands out. After articulating the importance of certain liberties that could not be compromised and the importance of equality of opportunity, Rawls asked how society should view inequality.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Inequality, Leadership, and Liberalism
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America