:: wikimiki.org ::

Right-wing Politics

Right-wing politics

:Right wing is also a term used in several sports; see winger (sport). In politics, right-wing, the political right, or simply the Right, are terms that refer to the segment of the political spectrum typically associated with any of several strains of conservatism, classical liberalism, the religious right, authoritarian nationalism; or often simply the opposite of left-wing politics. The term comes originally from the legislative seating arrangement during the French Revolution, when monarchists who supported the Ancien Régime were commonly referred to as rightists because they sat on the right side of successive legislative assemblies. As this original reference became obsolete, the meaning of the term has changed as appropriate to the spectrum of ideas and stances being compared, and the point of view of the speaker. In recent times, the term almost always includes some forms of conservatism and Christian democracy. Some consider the political Right to include those forms of liberalism that emphasize the free market more than egalitarianism in wealth, but many free-market advocates, including most libertarians conceive of an additional spectrum (libertarianism-totalitarianism) upon which they place themselves which intersects the left-right political spectrum and places them 90 degrees away from traditional left and right, much as many anarchists (including "libertarian socialists") avoid placing themselves on the spectrum. See political spectrum and left-right politics for further discussion of this kind of classification.

Right-wing issues

In the 20th century, outside the United States, where capitalism was always supported by the many politicians and intellectuals, the most notable distinction between left and right was in economic policy. The right advanced capitalism, whereas the left advocated socialism (often democratic socialism) or communism. This distinction has shifted somewhat since the collapse of the Soviet Bloc, as mainstream politicians now accept limited capitalism to a large degree, but in a socialistic form in which government mandates significant redistribution of wealth. The dominant modern strand of right wing thought is concerned with traditional values (often Christian in nature) and preservation of individual and corporate rights through constraints on government power. In a hard-line form the second and third of these priorities are associated with libertarianism, but some on the right reject the most ardent assumptions of libertarianism, especially outside of the United States, and a small minority of libertarians do not consider themselves to be right wing. A more obscure strand of right wing thought, often associated with the original right wing from the times of monarchy, supports the preservation of wealth and power in the hands that have traditionally held them, social stability, and national solidarity and ambition. Both of the above strands of right wing thought come in many forms, and individuals who support some of the objectives of one of the above stands will not necessarily support all of the others. At the level of practical political policy, there are endless variations in the means that right wing thinkers advocate to achieve their basic aims, and they sometimes argue with each other as much as with the left. The values and policy concerns of the right vary in different countries and eras. Also, individual right wing politicians and thinkers often have idiosyncratic priorities. It is not always possible or helpful to try to work out which of two sets of beliefs or policies is more right-wing (see political spectrum).

History of the term

:See the Left-Right politics article for more detailed discussion of the history and development of the term Since the French Revolution, the political use of the terms "left" and "right" has evolved across linguistic, societal, and national boundaries, sometimes taking on meanings in one time and place that contrast sharply with those in another. For example, as of 2004 the government of the People's Republic of China claims to remain on the "left," despite an evolution that has brought it quite close to what is elsewhere characterized as "right," supporting national cultural traditions, the interests of wealth, and privately owned industry. Conversely, the late dictator of Spain, Francisco Franco, who was firmly allied internationally with the right and who brutally suppressed the Spanish left, nonetheless pursued numerous development policies quite similar to those of the Soviet Union and other communist states, which are almost universally considered to be on the "left." Similarly, while "right" originally referred to those who supported the interests of aristocracy, in many countries today (notably the United States) the left-right distinction is not strongly correlated with wealth or ancestry.

Far Right

The Far Right, Radical Right, and Hard Right are terms used by many scholars to discuss political groups, movements, and political parties that are difficult to classify within the conventional right wing. Fascism is sometimes considered to be a form of far right politics, particularly by critics of the right. Most right-wingers reject any association with fascism however, and a handful of scholars place fascism on the political left, (see Fascism and ideology). Much confusion is caused by widely varying usage of these terms. The term Far Right is used in different ways by different authors. It has been used by scholars in at least three somewhat conflicting ways to encompass:
- Reform-oriented right-wing movements or rightist factions of conservative political parties. These are sometimes called the dissident right, activist right, or right-wing populism, These are all forms of Right-wing politics located between traditional conservatives and the extreme right. In this case particpants are found outside mainstream electoral politics, but they generally produce a movement of drastic reform rather than actual revolution.
- The extreme right or ultra right, which includes neo-fascists, White supremacists, and Neo-Nazis. Such groups are generally revolutionary in character rather than reformist.
- The whole range of right-wing politics from the borders of conservatism out to the far reaches of the extreme right. Even these categorisations are by no means universally accepted, and other uses exist, making comparative use of the term complicated.

Current political parties referred to as far right

The list below includes a range of political parties, some of which have also been decribed as extreme right or even neo-fascist:
- ACT Party (New Zealand)
- Alternativa Sociale (Italy)
- Al Wefaq (Bahrain)
- British National Party (UK)
- Christian Falangist Party of America (USA)
- Constitution Party (USA)
- Danish People's Party (Denmark)
- Eurasia Party (Russia)
- Finnish People's Blue-whites
- Freedom Party of Austria
- Imperial Party (United Kingdom)
- Jathika Hela Urumaya (Sri Lanka)
- Kach and Kahane Chai (Israel)
- Liberal Democratic Party of Russia
- Narodowe Odrodzenie Polski (Poland)
- National Democratic Party of Germany
- National Front (Belgium)
- National Front (France)
- One Nation Party (Australia)
- Popular Orthodox Rally (Greece)
- Progress Party (Norway)
- Sweden Democrats
- Swiss Democrats
- Vlaams Belang (Belgium)

Extreme or Ultra Right

The Extreme right or Ultra right is the term used by most scholars to discuss right-wing political groups that step outside the boundaries of traditional electoral politics. This generally includes the revolutionary right, militant racial supremacists and religious extremists, Fascists, neo-fascists, Nazis, and neo-Nazis. It is distinct from other forms of right wing politics such as the less-militant sectors of the Far Right and Right-Wing Populists, as well as from the more traditional conservatives.

Right-wing politics and Fascism

There are elements of both left and right ideology in the development of Fascism, but it generally attracts political support from right-wing and ultra-conservative movements and electoral parties. A handful of scholars argue that fascism is a form of left wing politics. See: Fascism and ideology

External links

- [http://www.politicalcompass.org/ The Political Compass], an alternative view of the political spectrum
- [http://FreedomKeys.com/nolancharts.htm The Nolan Charts], other alternative political spectra (mostly libertarian-oriented)
- [http://www.publiceye.org/research/chart_of_sectors.html publiceye.org] - chart_of_sectors
- [http://www.larebil.com larebil.com] - Right Wing Editorial
- [http://www.la-articles.org.uk/pc.htm The Political Compass and Why Libertarianism is Not Right Wing] by J. C. Lester

References

- Betz, Hans-Georg and Stefan Immerfall, eds. 1998. The New Politics of the Right: Neo-Populist Parties and Movements in Established Democracies. New York: St. Martin's Press.
- Betz, Hans-Georg. 1994. Radical Right-wing Populism in Western Europe. New York: St. Martins Press.
- Durham, Martin. 2000. The Christian Right, the Far Right and the Boundaries of American Conservatism. Manchester, England: Manchester University Press.
- Durham, Martin. 2002. "From Imperium to Internet: the National Alliance and the American Extreme Right" Patterns of Prejudice 36(3), (July): 50-61.
- Hainsworth, Paul, ed. 2000. The Politics of the Extreme Right: From the Margins to the Mainstream. London: Pinter.
- Mudde, Cas. 2000. The Ideology of the Extreme Right. Manchester, England: Manchester University Press.
- Schoenbaum, David. Hitler's Social Revolution: Class and Status in Nazi Germany, 1933-1939. ISBN 0393315541 Category:Politics ko:우익 ja:右翼

Winger (sport)

In sports, the term winger is the name of a position, including football, rugby union, rugby league and field hockey. It refers to positions on the extreme left and right sides of the pitch (the wings). See winger (ice hockey).

Football (soccer)

In football, a winger is an attacking player in a wide position. Wingers are usually players of great pace or dribbling ability so as to provide cut-backs or crosses from which strikers can score. Their main function is to support attack from the wings. They are a special breed of midfielders who work up and down the flanks, and traditionally, are not expected to track back and defend. However, most modern wingers do defend and track back to repossess the ball, although their primary function lies in attack. Wingers used to be highly prized in the older times, but their importance has dwindled through the years. In the 1966 World Cup for example, England manager Alf Ramsey played without natural wingers in a team known as the "Wingless Wonders". In the modern game, some wide midfielders replace the role of wingers, whose contributions include providing defensive cover for fullbacks. One good example is David Beckham, who played in the position of right wing during his days at Manchester United, but is not commonly regarded as a winger since he functions primarily as a right midfielder and does not use either speed or dribbling ability to support play.

Famous Wingers

- George Best
- Tom Finney
- Ryan Giggs
- Garrincha
- Stanley Matthews
- Chris Waddle
- John Barnes

Current wingers

- Denilson
- Cafu
- Roberto Carlos
- Robert Pirès
- Fredrik Ljungberg
- Luis Figo
- Ryan Giggs
- Cristiano Ronaldo

Rugby union and Rugby league

Wingers or wings play on either the extreme left or the extreme right. They are usually the fastest players on the field and score the most tries. For more information see Rugby union positions and Rugby League positions.

Political spectrum

A political spectrum is a way of comparing or visualizing different political positions, by placing them upon one or more geometric axes.

Determining political spectra

The key assumption of such a spectrum is that people's view(s) on many issues correlate strongly, or that one essential issue subsumes or dominates all others. For a political spectrum to exist, there must be a range of beliefs. Political systems in which most people fall clearly into one group or another with almost no one in between, such as most nationalist controversies, are not well described by a political spectrum. In Iran, for instance, a political spectrum might be divided along the issue of the clergy's role in government. Those who believe clerics should have the power to enforce Islamic law are on one end of the spectrum, those who support a secular society are on the other; moderates fall at various points in between. In Taiwan, the political spectrum is defined in terms of Chinese reunification versus Taiwan independence. Even in issues of nationalism, spectra can exist; for example, in the Basque Country of Spain, Basque nationalists range from the EAJ/PNV, who have engaged in coalition governments with both the socialist PSOE and the conservative Partido Popular, to ETA, which engage in terror tactics and armed struggle against the Spanish national government, which they view as an occupying power. Political spectra can end when one group wins so thoroughly that there is no longer a divergence of opinions. This occurred in the 1960s during the Cultural Revolution in the People's Republic of China in the case between the rightists and the leftists in which the leftists won, or in the late 18th century controversy between the Federalists and the Anti-federalists in the United States. Often in this situation the winners start disagreeing over new issues, and a new political spectrum is created. In some cases, the defeated side can re-appear after several years or several decades, and start the controversy anew. At other times the political spectrum remains, while the issues which define the spectrum change. The controversy over the selection of William of Orange's successor to the English throne helped to define the British political spectrum which exists to this day, long after the original controversy was resolved. In some cases, especially in democratic countries without a "first past the post" system, multiple spectra can co-exist. For example, from its founding in 1901 to 1909, the Commonwealth of Australia had two equally strong policial spectra - Free Trade vs. Protectionism and Workers vs. Bosses (Liberals). However, by 1909 the first continuum had become irrelevent, and the two leading parties of each idea (Free Trade Party and Protectionist Party) merged to become the Liberal Party, in order to better compete with the strong workers' party (Australian Labor Party). This second continuum remained dominant in federal Australian politics until the mid-1990's.

Left and Right

See main article Left-Right politics In modern Western countries, the political spectrum usually is described along left-right lines. This traditional political spectrum is defined along an axis with conservatism, theocracy, and fascism ("the Right") on one end, and socialism, communism, ("the Left") on the other. Free market liberalism is generally considered to be centrist or center-right; new liberalism or social liberalism is generally assigned to the center, center-left or sometimes (when viewed by conservatives) the left. Christian Democracy may be anywhere from center-right to center-left, depending on the country and era. National and cultural differences in the use of the terms left and right are common. In China, left and right have referred to different positions at different times, although the issues were often very different from those in Western nations.

Multiplicity of interpretation of the left-right axis

There are various different opinions about what is actually being measured along this axis, and lines often blur among parties. For more detail see the main article Left-Right politics:
- Equal outcomes (left) versus consistent processes (right).
- Redistribution of wealth and income (left), or acceptance of inequalities as a result of the free market (right).
- Whether the government's policy on the economy should be interventionist (left) or laissez-faire (right).
- Support for widened lifestyle choices (left), or support for traditional values (right).
- Whether the state should prioritise equality (left) or liberty (right). Both the left and the right tend to speak in favor of both equality and liberty - but they have different interpretations.
- Whether human nature is more malleable (left) or intrinsic (right).
- Whether the government should promote secularism (left) or religious morality (right).
- Collectivism (left) versus individualism (right).
- Support for internationalism (left), or national interest (right).

Historical origin of the terms

The terms Left and Right to refer to political affiliation originated early in the French Revolutionary era, and referred originally to the seating arrangements in the various legislative bodies of France. The aristocracy sat on the right of the Speaker (traditionally the seat of honor) and the commoners sat on the Left, hence the terms Right-wing politics and Left-wing politics. Originally, the defining point on the ideological spectrum was the ancien régime ("old order"). "The Right" thus implied support for aristocratic or royal interests, and the church, while "The Left" implied opposition to the same. Because the political franchise at the start of the revolution was relatively narrow, the original "Left" represented mainly the interests of the bourgeoisie, the rising capitalist class. At that time, support for laissez-faire capitalism and Free markets were counted as being on the left; today in most Western countries these views would be characterized as being on the Right. As the franchise expanded over the next several years, it became clear that there was something to the left of that original "Left": the precursors of socialism and communism, advocating the interests of wage-earners and peasants.

Alternative spectra

Some people feel that it is not obvious how these various concepts are related. They say that it is very confusing to speak of the right or the left without indicating what exactly you are referring to. They believe that one should first establish context by defining the axes upon which different positions will be measured. Many individuals and groups do not fit on such a simple spectrum. While the right-left spectrum is so common as to be taken for granted, numerous alternatives exist, usually having been developed by people who feel their views are not fairly represented on the traditional right-left spectrum. The design of a spectrum itself can be politically motivated. Another alternative spectrum offered by the conservative American Federalist Journal emphasizes the degree of political control, and thus places totalitarianism at one extreme and anarchism (no government at all) at the other extreme. Another alternative, currently popular among certain environmentalists, uses a single axis to measure what they consider to be the good of the Earth against the good of big business, which is seen as being the force most likely to harm the Earth. In 1998, political author Virginia Postrel, in her book The Future and Its Enemies, offered a new single axis spectrum that measures one's view of the future. On one extreme are those who allegedly fear the future and wish to control it: stasists. On the other hand are those who want the future to unfold naturally and without attempts to plan and control: dynamists. The distinction corresponds to the utopian versus anti-utopian spectrum used in some theoretical assessments of liberalism, and the book's title is borrowed from the work of the anti-utopian classic-liberal theorist Karl Popper. Other axes include:
- Role of the church: Clericalism vs. Anti-clericalism. This axis is not significant in the United States where views of the role of religion tend to get subsumed into the general left-right axis, but in Europe clericalism versus anti-clericalism is much less correlated with the left-right spectrum.
- Urban vs. rural: This axis is also much more significant in European as well as Australian and Canadian politics than American.
- Foreign policy: interventionism (the nation should exert power abroad to implement its policy) vs. isolationism (the nation should keep to its own affairs)
- Political violence: pacifism (political views should not be imposed by violent force) vs. militancy (violence is a legitimate or necessary means of political expression). In North America, holders of these views are often referred to as "doves" and "hawks", respectively.
- Foreign trade: globalization (world economic markets should become integrated and interdependent) vs. autarky (the nation or polity should strive for economic independence). During the early history of the Commonwealth of Australia, this was the major political continuum. At that time it was called Free trade vs. Protectionism.
- Trade Freedom vs. Trade Equity: Free trade (businesses should be able trade across borders without regulations) vs. Fair trade (international trade should be regulated on behalf of social justice).
- Diversity: multiculturalism (the nation should represent a diversity of cultural ideas) vs. assimilationism or nationalism (the nation should primarily represent the majority culture)
- Participation: Democracy (rule of the majority) vs. Oligarchy (rule by a limited number of people) vs. Republic (a compromise between the two; this is a specialised use of the term 'republic' based on an interpretation of classical history)
- Freedom: Positive liberty (having rights which impose an obligation on others) vs. Negative liberty (freedom from interference by others)
- Change: radicals (who believe in rapid change) vs.progressives (who believe in measured , incremental change)vs.conservatives (who believe in minimal or cautious change), and sometimes vs. reactionaries (who believe in changing things to the way they were)
- Origin of state authority: popular sovereignty (the state as a creation of the people, with enumerated, delegated powers) vs. various forms of absolutism and organic state philosophy (the state as an original and essential authority)
- International action Multilateralism (states should cooperate and compromise) versus Unilateralism (states have a strong, even unconditional, right to make their own decisions).
Multi-axis models
A one-axis model is highly over-simplified, and lumps together fairly different political propositions; in particular, as seen before, there are many ways to define the left-right spectrum, which do not yield the same classifications. Several of the political philosophies that have arisen over the past two centuries do not fit on the one-dimensional left/right line, in particular anarchism and libertarianism. Anarchism is assumed to be "left", while Libertarianism is assumed to be "right". However, on the one-dimensional spectrum, anarchism shares almost the same position as various forms of Marxism, which is obviously inappropriate. Anarchism implies the rejection of government and societal control (as well as private property), while Leninism and other forms of Marxism imply the control by society of many activities. At the other end of the left/right line, Libertarianism finds itself in the same position as fascism, which is equally inappropriate. In order to address these problems, a number of proposals have been made for a two-axis system, which combines two models of the political spectrum as axes. Sometimes these systems are constructed for the specific purpose of placing one political group in a particular position, and associating it with motherhood values (values with 100% positive connonations). These charts are academic in origin, but are not widely used in political science.
Eysenck model
The first person to devise such a two-axis system was Hans Eysenck in his 1964 book "Sense and Nonsense in Psychology." Starting with the traditional "left-right" spectrum Eysenck added a vertical axis that considered "tough-mindedness" (authoritarian tendencies) and "tender-mindedness" (democratic tendencies). The effect of this new axis is that those who have very different views with regard to authority, but have the same "left-right" view (people like Stalin and Noam Chomsky), can be distinguished.
Nolan chart
Noam Chomsky] Main article: Nolan chart A second chart is the Nolan chart, created by libertarian David Nolan. This chart shows what he considers as "economic freedom" (issues like taxation, free trade and free enterprise) on the x axis and what he considers as "personal freedom" (issues like drug legalization, abortion and the draft) on the y-axis. This puts left-wingers in the left quadrant, libertarians in the top, right-wingers in the right, and authoritarianism and communitarians (whom Nolan originally named populists) in the bottom. The traditional left-right spectrum forms a diagonal across the Nolan chart, with communism and fascism both in the ultra-populist corner, an assignment hotly disputed by more liberal-minded communists who do not advocate state control over matters of "personal freedom". The Nolan chart has been reoriented and visually represented in many forms since David Nolan first created it, and has been the inspiration for an endless array of political self-quizzes, perhaps the most famous of these being the [http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html World's Smallest Political Quiz], which places one on the Nolan Chart.
Political compass
populists Largely following the Eysenck method, the model used by the political compass Organization has economic issues on the horizontal axis and issues of freedom on the vertical axis. Possibly the most popular and well-known online political [http://politicalcompass.org/ quiz], it asks a wide-range of questions before placing you on a chart.
Pournelle chart
political compass Main article: Pournelle chart A third, very different, two axis model was created by Jerry Pournelle. The Pournelle chart has liberty (a dimension similar to the diagonal of the Nolan chart, with those on the left seeking liberty and those on the right focusing control, farthest right being state worship, farthest left being the idea of a state as the "ultimate evil") perpendicular to Rationalism, defined here as the belief in planned social progress, with those higher up believing that there are problems with society that can be rationally solved, and those lower down skeptical of such approaches.
Other models
Rationalism Rationalism] In its January 4, 2003 issue, The Economist discussed [http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/library/main_illustrations.asp a chart, proposed by Dr. Ronald Inglehart] and supported by the World Values Survey (associated with the University of Michigan), to plot cultural ideology onto two dimensions. On the y-axis it covered issues of tradition and religion, like patriotism, abortion, euthanasia and the importance of obeying the law and authority figures. At the bottom of the chart is the traditionalist position on issues like these (with loyalty to country and family and respect for life considered important), while at the top is the secular position. The x-axis deals with self-expression, issues like everyday conduct and dress, acceptance of diversity (including foreigners) and innovation, and attitudes towards people with specific controversial lifestyles such as homosexuality and vegetarianism, as well as willingness to partake in political activism. At the right of the chart is the open self-expressionist position, while at the left is its opposite position, which Dr. Inglehart calls survivalist. This chart not only has the power to map the values of individuals, but also to compare the values of people in different countries. Placed on this chart, EU countries in continental Europe come out on the top right, Anglophone countries on the middle right, Latin American countries on the bottom right, African, Middle Eastern and South Asian countries on the bottom left, and ex-Communist countries on the top left. In addition to the distinctions between different types of "control" on many of these spectra, there is no clear way to locate philosophies such as feminism or environmentalism, even using a two-axis spectrum. Additional dimensions would be required to accommodate them, and that would make the model far too complex to be of any use. As an example, there are even some three axis models, both based on the Nolan Chart. The Friesian Institute has suggested a model that combines the economic liberty and personal liberty axes with positive liberty, creating a cube. The Vosem Chart splits the economic axis of the Nolan chart into two axes, corporate economics (z-axis) and individual economics (y-axis), which combine with the civil liberty axis (x-axis) to form a cube.

Ab-initio derived models

While multiple axes on the political spectrum had been postulated for a while, statistical analysis of survey data using principal component analysis to verify the theory and establish their existence, number and meaning was not done until recently. A 2003 study in the UK yielded two significant eigenvectors (that is, groups of questions that tend to be answered consistently), one less well-constrained than the other. If one examines the survey questions and tries to assign a meaning to the axes it turns out that one is like the familiar "left-right" axis that mixes economic and social issues, and the other indicates a degree of political pragmatism. The outcome of that study is that the UK political spectrum is most sensibly described with two axes. [http://politics.beasts.org] [http://www.politicalsurvey2005.com/]
Suggested reading
Maximum Liberty by Anonymous. 2003. (ISBN 0974443905) Provides an overview of the different models of the political spectrum. The author proposes a new, universal model for the political spectrum and explains why the various existing models are inadequate. The model separates the scope of government from the form of government, whereas the political spectrum only describes potential levels of government control over society, not forms of rulership and administrative organization. Beyond Liberal and Conservative: Reassessing the Political Spectrum by William S. Maddox and Stuart A. Lilie; foreword by David Boaz. Washington, D.C.: Cato Institute, 1984. (ISBN 0932790437) This book emphasises that the world needs a better model of the political spectrum. The authors favor the American libertarian concept of a two-axis model.
See also

- List of politics-related topics
- Nolan chart
- Political compass
- Spectrum (disambiguation)
- Left-right politics
- Syncretic politics
External links

- [http://www.politicalcompass.org/ The Political Compass]
- [http://www.self-gov.org/wspq.html World's Smallest Political Quiz]
- [http://www.baen.com/chapters/axes.htm The Pournelle Political Axes - All Ends of the Spectrum]
- [http://www.friesian.com/quiz.htm Friesian Institute]
- [http://www.federalistjournal.com/spectrum.php Alternative Spectrum - American Federalist Journal]
- [http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org The World Values Survey - main site]
- [http://wvs.isr.umich.edu University of Michigan World Values Survey]
- [http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/6/14/45425/6208 Vosem Chart] Category:Political parties Category:Elections Category:Politics

Classical liberalism

Classical liberalism (or alternatively Classic liberalism) is a political school of thought that holds that all rights are held by individuals, and that governments are put into place solely in order to defend those rights. Classical liberals promote the use of restrictive constitutions in the formation of governments, to ensure that their role is constrained to the defense of these rights. "Classical liberalism" can refer to early (approximately pre-1850) liberalism, or it can refer to economic liberalism which is similar to and derived from the historical classical liberals.

Introduction

The classic liberal philosophy places a particular emphasis on the role of property rights in ensuring the rights of the individual, and forms the philosophical underpinning of the free market system. The precepts of classic liberalism were probably best described by John Locke and Adam Smith, and illuminated much of the thought at the time of the American revolution. As a result, the United States Constitution and the United States Declaration of Independence are both documents that embody many principles of classic liberalism. Modern liberalism tends to deviate from this definition of the term "liberal" in that it espouses the use of the power of government to achieve a variety of desirable goals, ranging from social justice to economic equality. The libertarian movement is probably the closest modern derivative of classic liberalism, although other political movements and parties sometimes incorporate its ideals, and often borrow from its rhetoric. The CATO Institute briefly discusses these changes and their views on the term Classical Liberalism, stating from their website: :"Classical liberal" is a bit closer to the mark, but the word "classical" connotes a backward-looking philosophy. Finally, "liberal" may well be the perfect word in most of the world--the liberals in societies from China to Iran to South Africa to Argentina are supporters of human rights and free markets--but its meaning has clearly been corrupted by contemporary American liberals." Classical liberals often prefer to call themselves liberals because they see themselves as the only rightful inheritors of Liberalism.

Origins

Classical liberalism is a political and economic philosophy. With roots in ancient Greek and medieval thought, it received an early expression in the 16th century by the School of Salamanca and its classic formulation in the Enlightenment tradition. The Wealth of Nations (1776) by Scottish philosopher Adam Smith is one of the classic works. Another early expression is the tradition of a Nordic school of liberalism set in motion by a Finnish parliamentarian Anders Chydenius. Classical liberalism tries to circumscribe the limits of political power and to define and support individual liberty and private property. The phrase is often used as a means of delineating the older philosophy called liberalism from modern liberalism, in order to avoid semantic confusion. modern liberalism] Classic Liberalism is close to 18th century Liberalism. The Wealth of Nations (1776) by Adam Smith is considered one of the classic foundations of liberalism. While Adam Smith provides an explanation of liberalism and economics, the legal and philosophical understanding originates with scholars like John Locke and evolves through Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. Immanuel Kant, in the Perpetual Peace, creates an international liberal framework to foster a sustainable world peace. The term "liberal" derived from this time period (generally the 18th and 19th century) with its origination stemming from the belief in individual freedom, economic freedom (including free markets), and limited representative government. This original understanding of the word "liberal" carries the same meaning in some parts of the world, but in others (such as the United States) the meaning and ideology behind Liberalism is ironically the exact opposite (welfare state, tariffs, heavy intervention and regulation into the economy, wage and price controls)of its original meaning. In many countries liberalism holds a position between classical liberalism and American liberalism. Only a few major parties adhere to classical liberalism, most of the liberal parties accept limited government intervention in economics. Perpetual Peace] Classic Liberals include all original liberals such as John Locke, Adam Smith, David Ricardo, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, John Stuart Mill with his work On Liberty, and even more modern liberals such as Von Mises, Hayek, and Milton Friedman. Classical liberal institutions include the Frasier Institute (Canada), The Hoover Institution (Stanford University), and The Cato Institute to name a few. In Hayek's book The Constitution of Liberty, in the chapter, "Why I am not a Conservative" Hayek tells us that he was not a conservative because he was in fact a liberal; and had refused to give up that label. In the United States the term liberal had changed meaning, and according to Hayek this was because Franklin D Roosevelt had been labeled a socialist and a leftist because of his New Deal Policies. Fearing the consequences of that label, FDR called himself a Liberal instead. Since that day, Liberal in the United States has had a different meaning from the orginal, 18th and 19th century meaning of the word. People who stayed close to this orginal meaning label themselves often "Classic Liberal", "Classical Liberal" or "Libertarian" to avoid confusion (especially in America ).

Classical liberal Philosophy

Classical Liberals subscribe to a very basic and universal understanding of the world and the rights of all humans. Classical Liberals believe in private property, free markets, economic competition, freedom from coercion, limited government (all economic freedom), the rule of law, and individual rights (Natural rights is also used). These are inherent to all people, of all faiths, cultures, societies, ethnicities, and histories and that all peoples are capable of achieving liberal government and liberal societies not just western cultures. (Classical) Liberals prefer a Laissez-faire style of government with a microeconomic focus and understanding of economic operations. Classical Liberals do not believe in wealth transfers, tariffs, or other trade barriers such as quotas, regulated markets (also known as a Mixed economy ), capital controls, wage and price controls. As a general rule these macroeconomic policies (favored by groups varying from Communists, Fascists, Nazis, socialists, social democrats, and liberal Keynesians) reduce the general welfare of society and according to Hayek and Friedman will ultimately reduce and eliminate the political and civil freedoms enjoyed by the people. Conversely, Hayek and Friedman believed that this economic freedom would help build and protect political and civil freedoms. Milton Friedman's Free to Choose and Capitalism and Freedom are examples of this philosophy updated for modern man and woman to understand (classical) liberalism.

Classical Liberalism during the Great Depression and the Rise of Dictatorships

Some liberals, including Friedrich August von Hayek, Milton Friedman, and Von Mises, argued that the great depression was not a result of "laissez-faire" capitalism but a result of too much government intervention and regulation upon the market but also that such intervention can and will lead to international conflict (World War I and World War II) but the rise of totalitarian regimes and the loss of political and civil freedoms. Hayek, in his book The Road to Serfdom, believed that the rise of totalitarian regimes, whether they be communist, fascist, or Nazi, were the result of the restriction of economic freedom. Economic freedom was, thus, restricted by government intervention and regulation of the economy. Hayek states: : "…economic planning, conducted independently on a national scale, are bound in the aggregate effect to be harmful even from a purely economic point of view and, in addition to produce serious international friction. That there is little hope of international order or lasting peace so long as every country is free to employ whatever measures it desires in its own immediate interest, however damaging they may be to others…" Hayek, F.A., The Road to Serfdom, The University of Chicago Press, 1944. p. 240. Here Hayek is demonstrating the rationale behind why economic policies like those subscribed to by Keynesian economists can not and could not be compatible to freedom and peace much in the same way Nazis, Fascists, and Communists failed to retain or create free and peaceful states The more economic freedom that was lost, he said, the more civil and political freedom would be lost as well. Hayek's work The Road to Serfdom remains influential, argued against these "Keynesian" institutions, believing that they can and will lead to the same totalitarian governments Keynesians were attempting to avoid. Hayek saw authoritarian regimes such as the fascist, Nazis, and communists, as the same totalitarian branch that sought the elimination of economic freedom. To him the elimination of economic freedom brought about the elimination of political freedom. Thus the differences between Nazis and communists are only rhetorical. The same outcomes could occur in Britain (or anywhere else) if the state sought to control the economic freedom of the individual with the policy prescriptions outlined by people like Dewey, Keynes, or Roosevelt. Nobel Prize winning economists such as Hayek and Milton Friedman have argued for years that economic freedom leads to greater political and civil rights and those governments who control the economy tend to limit economic rights and eventually will limit political, civil rights of their people. Friedman states, :"economic freedom is simply a requisite for political freedom. By enabling people to cooperate with one another without coercion or central direction it reduces the area over which political power is exercised." Friedman, Milton and Rose Friedman, Free to Choose: A Personal Statement, Harcort Brace Janovich, 1980, p. 2-3 Free to Choose]

Classical liberalism, Economic Freedom, and their relationship with Civil and Political Freedoms

Friedrich von Hayek and Milton Friedman stated that economic freedom is a necessary condition for the creation and sustainability of civil and political freedoms. Hayek believed the same totalitarian outcomes could occur in Britain (or anywhere else) if the state sought to control the economic freedom of the individual with the policy prescriptions outlined by people like Dewey, Keynes, or Roosevelt. (Classical) liberal studies by the Canadian conservative Fraser Institute, the American conservative Heritage Foundation, and the Wall Street Journal argue that there is in fact a relationship between economic freedom and political and civil freedoms as Friedrich von Hayek had once said. They agree with Hayeks statement that those countries which restrict economic freedom ultimately restrict civil and political freedoms. On the other hand, economic freedom does not necesarily imply civil and political freedom. FA Hayek and Milton Friedman have both observed that economic freedom is a necessary condition for the creation and sustainability of civil and political freedoms. This has been observed through history over the last century; easily seen by the atrocities committed by the least economically free countries in the world which include Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, Communist China, Khmer Rouge Cambodia... Hayek believed the same totalitarian outcomes could occur in Britain (or anywhere else) if the state sought to control the economic freedom of the individual with the policy prescriptions outlined by people like Dewey, Keynes, or Roosevelt. The facts of history in the post-war era affirmed in his vision the accuracy of his thesis. Clement Atley's Labour Party, after winning a land slide election in post was England, encouraged private buisness owners to hand over their property, nationalized many industries, instituted wage and price controls, and even attempted to place restrictions on their citizens ability to seek employment at will, by requiring citizens to seek permission from the central government. Another example, in the 1960s the Labour Government of Harold Wilson placed a limit of £30 on money people could take abroad to avoid the consequences of an inflatonary policy pursued to create full-employment. Nevertheless, British democratic institutions survived and in 1979 a radical Conservative government led by Margaret Thatcher was elected, which, sometimes painfully, re-liberalised the economy. Recent empirical studies by the Frasier Institute, Heritage Foundation, and the Wall Street Journal argued that there is in fact a relationship between economic freedom and political and civil freedoms as Friedrich von Hayek had once observed. As he stated, those countries which restrict economic freedom ultimately restrict civil and political freedoms.
- http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/readmore.asp?sNav=pb&id=789
- http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/

Classical liberalism and rhetorical liberalism as practiced in the United States

In the United States the Republican Party has paid lip service to classical liberal philosophy since New Deal era. However, Republican president, Richard Nixon proved to be no friend of classical liberal philosophy by instituting price controls on goods during an economic crisis in the 1970s. The Democratic Carter administration oversaw the deregulation of the airline industry while also restricting the money supply (a harsh monetarist policy) to combat stagflation which plagued the United States. Many small liberal gains were achieved under Ronald Reagan in the 1980's as liberalism gained steam world wide, but the country continued to mount a national debt because of an embalanced budget. The Democrats, under Bill Clinton, took things a little further, balancing the U.S. budget, created NAFTA, and influenced the birth of the GATT94 WTO all of which helped usher in a prosperous decade for the United States. Despite these strides toward liberalism the changes have been small. Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans consider themselves to be classical liberal parties. The Libertarian Party is a party in the United States that whole heartedly supports classical liberalism. However, it has little influence and only a small chance of putting an official in the White House or Congress. Within the United States, classical liberalism is rhetorically confused with conservatism. The CATO Instutite states from its website :" Only in America do people seem to refer to free-market capitalism--the most progressive, dynamic, and ever-changing system the world has ever known--as conservative. Additionally, many contemporary American conservatives favor state intervention in some areas, most notably in trade and into our private lives." According to most classical liberals, modern liberalism as it is practiced, is mostly rhetorical lip service to liberalisms highest ideals of freedom, rather than a function of its basic assumptions: the free market. See liberalism for further understanding.
See also

- Austrian School
- Capitalism
- Chicago school
- Deregulation
- Free market
- Globalization
- Privatization
- Liberalization
- Marketization
- Liberalism
- Libertarianism
- Paleoliberalism
External articles

- [http://www.angelfire.com/rebellion/oldwhig4ever/ Liberalism] by Friedrich Hayek
- http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/readmore.asp?sNav=pb&id=789
- http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/ Category:liberalism Category:Political theories

Religious right

The term Religious Right, is a broad label applied to a number of political and religious movements and groups. These groups have particularly conservative and right wing views; and it primarily focuses on the phenomena in the United States. Sometimes the term Religious Right is used interchangeably with the term Christian Right, although some argue for a distinction. The main article on the topic of politically active conservative Christians in the United States is at the Christian Right page. Some claim that the term Religious Right involves stereotyping by leftwing political activists. Others believe that such stereotyping is minimal, and the term "religious right" is used more often than other similar terms (such as "religious left") simply because in the United States a significant number of evangelical Christians are allied with right-wing political movements. While many nations have conservative religious institutions that interact with conservative political institutions, the term "Religious Right" is most commonly applied to groups within the United States. Some historians have traced the strong nationalism and political activism of modern Christians back to the Puritans who came out of England in the 1600's. The nationalist heraldry of the yellow ribbon seen in America today goes back to the sashes worn by soldiers of Oliver Cromwell's Puritan Army that went to war against King Charles I of England during the English Civil War.

External Links

- [http://endtimepilgrim.org/puritans13.htm The Religious Right and today's Puritans.]

References

- Diamond, Sara. 1995. Roads to Dominion: Right-Wing Movements and Political Power in the United States. New York: Guilford.
- Martin, William. 1996. With God on Our Side: The Rise of the Religious Right in America, New York: Broadway Books.
- Ribuffo, Leo P. 1983. The Old Christian Right: The Protestant Far Right from the Great Depression to the Cold War. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Category:Christian evangelicalism Category:Christian fundamentalism Category:Christian group structuring Category:Religion and politics Category:Charismatic and Pentecostal Christianity

Nationalism

Nationalism is an ideology which holds that the nation, ethnicity or national identity is a "fundamental unit" of human social life, and makes certain political claims based upon that belief; above all, the claim that the nation is "the only legitimate basis for the state", and that "each nation is entitled to its own state". In this form, nationalism is a universal ideology; but the term also refers to the specific ideology of nationalist movements, which make political claims on behalf of specific nations. Nationalism is also defined as a "specific conceptual perspective," born in 16th century England and eventually spread to other communities, that forms "the constitutive element of modernity." These movements may dispute each others specific claims; nevertheless, they share the same general nationalist ideology. Two of the standard (and methodologically dissimilar) works in nationalism are Benedict Anderson's "Imagined Communities" and Liah Greenfeld's "Nationalism: Five Roads to Modernity." Nationalists define individual nations on the basis of certain criteria, which distinguish one nation from another; and also determine "who is a member of each nation". These criteria might include a shared language, a shared culture, and/or shared values; but the most important is probably now ethnicity, the belonging to or membership of an ethnic group. National identity refers both to these defining criteria, and to the "sense of belonging" to that group. Nationalists see membership of nation as exclusive and involuntary, meaning that you can not simply "join it", like any other association. Nationalism sees most human activity as national in character. Nations have national symbols, a national character, a national culture, a national music and national literature; national folklore, a national mythology and - in some cases - even a national religion. Individuals share national values and a national identity; admire the national hero, eat the national dish and play the national sport. Nationalism has had an enormous influence upon world history and geopolitics, since the nation-state has become the dominant form of state. Most of the world's population now lives in states which are, at least nominally, nation-states. The word 'nation' is often inaccurately used as a synonym for these states. The nation state is intended to guarantee the existence of a nation, to preserve its distinct identity, and to provide a territory where the national culture and ethos are dominant. Most nation-states appeal to a cultural and historical mythos to justify their existence, and to give them "legitimacy". Nationalists recognise that 'non-national' states exist; indeed, the struggles of early nationalist movements were often directed against empires, such as Austria-Hungary. The Vatican City exists to provide a sovereign state for the leadership of the Catholic Church; not for a nation. The global Caliphate sought by some Islamists is another example of a non-national state. Anyone who identifies with a nation, and sees nation-states as legitimate, can be described as a "nationalist". In this sense, most adults are "passive nationalists". However, the modern vernacular use of nationalism refers to political (and sometimes military) action, in support of nationalist demands. That action may include separatism, irredentism, militarism and in extreme cases "ethnic cleansing". Political scientists (and the media) usually tend to focus on these more extreme forms of nationalism.

Background and problems

Nationalism is a long controversial term, as its most general definition is broad, and has been controversial throughout history; and specific examples of nationalism are extremely diverse. Extreme emotions are aroused, when discussing nationalism, and that makes it difficult to describe and define nationalism. A recurring problem is that people define nationalism on the basis of their local experience. To a Breton nationalist, the central issue is state nationalism versus cultural nationalism; elsewhere that distinction may be irrelevant. Often supporters of nationalism fear that the negative consequences of conflicting nationalisms, ethnic tension, war, and political conflicts within states, are taken for nationalism itself, leading some to view the general concept of nationalism negatively. They argue that viewing nationalism through its most negative consequences distorts the meaning of the term. The emphasis upon specific conflicts has certainly diverted attention from general issues; for instance, the characteristics of nation-states. Nationalist movements may or may not claim that their nation is better than others. They may simply claim that the population of a given nation is better off when it is permitted to govern themselves; which is the principle of self-determination. However, conflicts often result in ideological attacks upon the identity and legitimacy of the 'enemy'. In the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, both sides claim that the other is not a real nation; and therefore has no right to a state. "Jingoism" and "chauvinism" make exaggerated claims about the superiority of one nation over another. National stereotypes are also common, and are usually insulting. These are nationalist phenomena; and are worthy of attention, but they are not a sufficient basis for a general theory of nationalism.

Issues in nationalism theory

The first studies of nationalism were generally historical accounts of nationalist movements. At the end of the 19th century, Marxists and socialists produced political analyses of the nationalist movements, then active in central and eastern Europe. Most sociological theories of nationalism date from after the Second World War. Some nationalism theory is about issues which concern nationalists themselves, such as who belongs to the nation and who does not, and what belonging to a nation means. Recent general theory has looked at underlying issues, and above all with the question of which came first, nations or nationalism. Nationalist activists see themselves as representing a pre-existing nation, and the primordialist theory of nationalism agrees. It sees nations, or at least ethnic groups, as a social reality dating back 20 thousand years. The modernist theories imply that until around 1800, no-one had more than local loyalties. National identity and unity were imposed from above, by European states, because they were necessary to modernise economy and society. In this theory, nationalist conflicts are an unintended side-effect. The more recent theorists of nationalism are influenced by postmodernism and emphasise that nations are a socially constructed phenomenon. Benedict Anderson, for example, described nations as "imagined communities". Ernest Gellner comments: "Nationalism is not the awakening of nations to self-consciousness: it invents nations where they do not exist." (Anderson and Gellner deploy terms such as 'imagined' and 'invent' in a neutral, descriptive manner. The use of these terms in this context is not intended to imply that nations are fictional or fantastic.) Modernisation theorists see such things as the printing press and capitalism as necessary conditions for nationalism. Anthony Smith proposes a synthesis of 'post-modernist' and traditional views. According to Smith, the preconditions for the formation of a nation are a fixed homeland (current or historical), high autonomy, hostile surroundings, memories of battles, sacred centres, languages and scripts, special customs, historical records and thinking. Smith considers that nations are formed through the inclusion of the whole populace (not just elites), constitution of legal and political institutions, nationalist ideology, international recognition and drawing up of borders.

Historical evolution of nationalism

Prior to 1900

Most theories of nationalism assume a European origin of the nation-state. The modern state is often seen as emerging with the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. This treaty created the Westphalian system of states, which recognised each others sovereignty and territory. Some of the signatories, such as the Dutch United Provinces, could be seen as a nation state, but there was no German equivalent, notwithstanding that the Holy Roman Empire consisted of almost entirely German-speaking states. In 1648 most states in Europe were still non-national. The theory of the Westphalian origin of the modern state system is disputed. The major transition to nation-states is often seen as originating in the late 18th and 19th centuries, although this is disputed. Beginning with romantic nationalism, nationalist movements arose throughout Europe. Some of them were separatist, directed against large empires, others sought to unify a divided or fragmented territory, most notably in Germany and Italy. These movements promoted a national identity and culture, and they were successful. By the end of the 19th century most people accepted that Europe was divided into nations, and personally identified with one of these nations. The collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Ottoman Empire after the First World War accelerated the formation of nation-states. According to the standard view, before the 19th century people had local, regional, or religious loyalties, but no idea of nationhood. The typical state in Europe was a dynastic state, ruled by a royal house: if there were any loyalties above regional level, then they were owed to the king and the ruling house. Dynastic states could acquire territory by royal marriage, and lose it by division of inheritance - which is now seen as absurd. Going further back, the ancient Greeks called everyone who was not Greek a barbarian (because their different language sounded like 'bar-bar' to Greek speaking people), but the Greek city states often fought amongst themselves for dominance. Nationalism introduced the idea that each nation has a specific territory, and that beyond this point the claims of other nations apply.
- Nation-states, in principle, do not seek to conquer territory.
- However, nationalist movements rarely agreed on where the border should be. As the nationalist movements grew, they introduced new territorial disputes in Europe. Nationalism also determined the political life of 19th century Europe. Where the nation was part of an empire, the national liberation struggle was also a struggle against older autocratic regimes, and nationalism was allied with liberal anti-monarchical movements. Where the nation-state was a consolidation of an older monarchy, as in Spain, nationalism was itself conservative and monarchical. Most nationalist movements began in opposition to the existing order, but by the 20th century, there were regimes which primarily identified themselves as nationalist. The standard theory of the 19th-century origin of nation-states is disputed. One problem with it is that the South American independence struggles, and the American Revolution (American War of Independence), predate most European nationalist movements. Some countries, such as the Netherlands and England, seem to have had a clear national identity well before the 19th century. Italy's unification, however, is a good example of a 19th-century nationalist movement based upon ethnicity and/or language.

20th Century nationalism

By the end of the 19th century, nationalist ideas had begun to spread to Asia. In India, nationalism began to encourage calls for the end of British rule. The 20th century nationalist movement in India is generally thought to have been led by Mahatma Gandhi, although many other leaders were involved as well. In China, nationalism created a justification for the Chinese state that was at odds with the idea of the universal empire. In Japan, nationalism combined with Japanese "exceptionalism" to form Japanese imperialism, as extreme nationalism often leads to imperialism. World War I led to new nation-states in Europe being encouraged by the United States, who were opposed to the old Imperial Empires, and by France, who wished to isolate Germany and Austria by a series of client states. The result of this pressure was that several multi-nation empires (Ottoman Empire, Austro-Hungarian Empire) disintegrated. The Russian Empire also lost territory. The Versailles Treaty, based upon US President Wilson's 14 Points, was an attempt to recognize the principle of nationalism, as most of Europe was divided into nation-states in what was euphemistically called an "attempt to keep the peace". However, multi-nation and multi-ethnic states survived; and two new ones emerged, Czechoslovakia (where Czechs took control even though they only made up 43% of the population), and Yugoslavia, (which became dominated by the Serbs). World War II initiated a new wave of nation-state formation, by the emergence of fascism and Nazism ("national socialism") before the War, and by independence from European colonial Empires, which declined after the War. The most dramatic decolonisation was in Africa, which was transformed from a collection of European colonies into a continent of nation-states. Few of them corresponded to the European ideal of "a single people, with one language" and a clear territory. Ironically, the one that best met those criteria, Somalia, disintegrated. The collapse of the Soviet Union led to an unexpected revival of national movements in Europe around 1990. Its constituent states became independent, for the second time (in modern history) in the case of the Baltic states. In the second half of the 20th century, some trends emerged which might indicate a weakening of the nation-state and nationalism. The European Union is widely seen transferring power from the national level to both sub-national and supra-national levels. Critics of globalization almost always see it as a threat to national identity, culture, and sovereignty. Free trade agreements, such as NAFTA and the GATT, and the increasing internationalisation of trade markets, are seen as damaging to the national economy, and have led to a revival of economic nationalism. Protest movements vehemently oppose these negative aspects of globalization, (see Anti-globalisation). Not all anti-globalists are nationalists, but nationalism continues to assert itself in response to those trends. Nationalist parties continue to do well in elections, and most people continue to have a strong sense of attachment to their nationality. Moreover, globalism and European federalism are not always opposed to nationalism. For example, theorists of Chinese nationalism within the People's Republic of China have articulated the idea that China's national power is substantially enhanced, rather than being reduced, by engaging in international trade and multinational organizations. For a time sub-national groups such as Catalonian autonomists and Welsh nationalists supported a stronger European Union in the hope that a Europe of the regions would limit the power of the present nation-states. However, with Euroscepticism now widespread in the EU, this transformation is no longer on its political agenda.

Language and nationalism

A common language has been a defining characteristic of the nation, and an ideal for nationalists. For example, in France before the French Revolution, regional languages such as Breton and Occitan were spoken, which were mutually incomprehensible. Standard French was also spoken in large parts of the country and had always been the language of administration, but after the Revolution it was imposed as the national language in non-French-speaking regions. For instance, in Brittany, Celtic names were forbidden. The formation of nation-states, and their consolidation after independence, was generally accompanied by policies to restrict, replace, or abandon minority languages. That accelerates the tendency noted in sociolinguistic research, that high-status languages displace low-status languages. See also: Language policy in France. Some theorists believe that nationalism became pronounced in the 19th century simply because language became a more important unifier due to increased literacy. With more people reading newspapers, books, pamphlets and so on, which were increasingly widely available to read since the spread of the printing press, it became possible for the first time to develop a broader cultural attachment beyond the local community. At the same time, differences in language solidified, breaking down old dialects, and excluding those from completely different language groups. Nationalist movements from Ireland to India promote the teaching, preservation, and use of traditional languages, such as Celtic languages, Hebrew, and Hindi. (See also: Language revival.) The United States, a country which historically welcomes immigrants of varying nationality, has what can be seen as a pattern of discrimination against languages other than English. Prominent examples are the German language, which was nearly eradicated during World War I, and French and Italian, which have nearly disappeared from everyday life. Today Spanish is a large second language across large portion of the country. Some politicians, such as Pat Buchanan have consciously opposed the rise of Spanish as a second American language, for fear that it would undermine traditional institutions. In the Arab World during the colonial period, the Turkish language, French language, Spanish language and English language were often imposed, although the intensity of imposition varied widely. When the colonial period ended (mostly after World War Two), a process of "Arabisation" began; reviving Arabic to unify their states and to facilitate a broader Arab identity, motivated by Pan-Arabism. Countries such as Algeria and Western Sahara underwent large scale Arabisations, changing from French and Spanish to Arabic respectively. However within the Arab World, some nationalistic attempts were made to emancipate a domestic vernacular and treat classical Arabic as a formal foreign language. It was often incomprehensible to the non-literate population of nominally Arab countries, which were politically - but not necessarily linguistically, culturally or ethnically, Arabized. These policies were first promoted in Egypt in the mid 20th century by the Egyptian scholar and nationalist Ahmad Lutfi al-Sayyid, who called for the formalization of the Egyptian Vernacular as the native language of the Egyptian people. More recently Bayoumi Andil, an Egyptian Linguist and Egyptologist, did research in what he nationalistically defines as the "Modern Egyptian Language", which led him to declare it "irrelevant" to Arabic. He claimed that it was the fourth phase of the ancient Egyptian language descended from Coptic, with which it is intimately related, syntactically, morphological, and phonologicaly. Similar attempts to emphasise minority languages completely independent of Arabic were made by the Nubians who are split between Egypt and Sudan, and relatively more successfully by the Amazigh (also known as Imazighen or Berber) in Morocco.

Prominent figures

See the List of prominent figures in nationalism.

Types of nationalism

Nationalism may manifest itself as part of official state ideology or as a popular (non-state) movement and may be expressed along civic, ethnic, cultural, religious or ideological lines. These self-definitions of the nation are used to classify types of nationalism. However such categories are not mutually exclusive and many nationalist movements combine some or all of these elements to varying degrees. Nationalist movements can also be classified by other criteria, such as scale and location. Some political theorists make the case that any distinction between forms of nationalism is false. In all forms of nationalism, the populations believe that they share some kind of common culture, and culture can never be wholly separated from ethnicity. The United States, for example, has "God" on its coinage and in its Pledge of Allegiance, and designates official holidays, which are seen by some to promote cultural biases. The United States has an ethnic theory of being American (nativism), and had a committee to investigate Un-American Activities. Civic nationalism (also civil nationalism) is the form of nationalism in which the state derives political legitimacy from the active participation of its citizenry, from the degree to which it represents the "will of the people". It is often seen as originating with Jean-Jacques Rousseau and especially the Social contract theories which take their name from his 1762 book The Social Contract. Civic nationalism lies within the traditions of rationalism and liberalism, but as a form of nationalism it is contrasted with ethnic nationalism. Membership of the civic nation is considered voluntary. Civic-national ideals influenced the development of representative democracy in countries such as the United States and France. Ethnic nationalism defines the nation in terms of ethnicity, which always includes some element of descent from previous generations. It also includes ideas of a shared culture, shared between members of the group and with their ancestors, and usually a shared language. Membership of the nation is hereditary. The state derives political legitimacy from its status as homeland of the ethnic group, and from its function to protect the national group and facilitate its cultural and social life, as a group. Ideas of ethnicity are very old, but modern ethnic nationalism was heavily influenced by Johann Gottfried von Herder, who promoted the concept of the Volk, and Johann Gottlieb Fichte. Ethnic nationalism is now the dominant form, and is often simply referred to as "nationalism". Note that the theorist Anthony Smith uses the term 'ethnic nationalism' for non-western concepts of nationalism, as opposed to western views of a nation defined by its geographical territory. Romantic nationalism (also organic nationalism, identity nationalism) is the form of ethnic nationalism in which the state derives political legitimacy as a natural ("organic") consequence and expression of the nation, or race. It reflected the ideals of Romanticism and was opposed to Enlightenment rationalism. Romantic nationalism emphasised a historical ethnic culture which meets the Romantic Ideal; folklore developed as a Romantic nationalist concept. The Brothers Grimm were inspired by Herder's writings to create an idealised collection of tales which they labeled as ethnic German. Historian Jules Michelet exemplifies French romantic-nationalist history. Cultural nationalism defines the nation by shared culture. Membership of the nation is neither voluntary (you cannot instantly acquire a culture), nor hereditary (children of members may be considered foreigners if they grew up in another culture). Chinese nationalism is said to be a good example of cultural nationalism, partly because of the many national minorities in China. (The 'Chinese nationalists' include those on Taiwan who reject the mainland Chinese government but claim the mainland Chinese state). State nationalism is a variant on civic nationalism, very often combined with ethnic nationalism. It implies that the nation is a community of those who contribute to the maintenance and strength of the state, and that the individual exists to contribute to this goal. Italian fascism is the best example, epitomised in this slogan of Mussolini: "Tutto nello Stato, niente al di fuori dello Stato, nulla contro lo Stato." ("Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State"). It is no surprise that this conflicts with liberal ideals of individual liberty, and with liberal-democratic principles. The Jacobin creation of a unitary and centralist French state, is often seen as the original version of state nationalism. Franquist Spain, and contemporary Turkish nationalism are later examples of state nationalism. However, the term state nationalism is often used in conflicts between nationalisms, and especially where a secessionist movement confronts an established nation state. The secessionists speak of state nationalism, to discredit the legitimacy of the larger state, since state nationalism is perceived as less authentic and less democratic. Flemish separatists speak of Belgian nationalism as a state nationalism. Basque separatists (ETA) and Corsican separatists refer to Spain, and France in this way. In return, the larger state calls them terrorists. There are no external criteria to assess which side is right, and the result is usually that the population is divided by conflicting appeals to its loyalty and patriotism. Religious nationalism defines the nation in terms of shared religion. If the state derives political legitimacy from adherence to religious doctrines, then it is may be more of a theocracy than a nation-state. In practice, many ethnic and cultural nationalisms are in some ways religious in character. The religion is a marker of group identity, rather than the motivation for nationalist claims. Irish nationalism is associated with Catholicism, and most Irish nationalist leaders of the last 100 years were Catholic, but many of the early (18th century) nationalists were Protestant. Irish nationalism never centred on theological distinctions like transubstantiation, the status of the Virgin Mary, or the primacy of the Pope, but for some Protestants in Northern Ireland, these pre-Reformation doctrines are indeed part of Irish culture. Similarly, although Religious Zionism exists, the mainstream of Zionism is more secular in nature, and based on culture and ethnicity. Since the partition of British India, Indian nationalism is associated with Hinduism. In modern India, a contemporary form of Hindu nationalism, or Hindutva has been prominent among many followers of the Bharatiya Janata Party and Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. Diaspora nationalism (or, as Benedict Anderson terms it "long-distance nationalism") generally refers to nationalist feeling among a Diaspora such as the Irish in the United States, or the Lebanese in the Americas and Africa[http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2501/is_1_26/ai_n6145318]. Benedict Anderson states that this sort of nationalism acts as a "phantom bedrock" for people who want to experience a national connection, but who do not actually want to leave their Diaspora community.

Nationalism within nations

With the establishment of a nation-state, the primary goal of any nationalist movement has been achieved. However, nationalism does not disappear but remains a political force within each nation, and inspires political parties and movements. The terms nationalist and 'nationalist politician’ are often used to describe these movements, nationalistic would be more accurate. Nationalists in this sense typically campaign for:
- strengthening national unity, including campaigns for national salvation in times of crisis.
- emphasising the national identity and rejecting foreign influences, influenced by cultural conservatism and xenophobia.
- limiting non-national populations on the national territory, especially by limiting immigration and in extreme cases, by ethnic cleansing.
- annexing territory which is considered part of the national homeland. This is called irredentism, from the Italian movement Italia irredenta.
- economic nationalism, which is the promotion of the national interest in economic policy, especially through protectionism and in opposition to free trade policies. Nationalist parties and nationalist politicians, in this sense, usually place great emphasis on national symbols, such as the national flag. The term 'nationalism' is also used by extension, or as a metaphor, to describe movements which promote a group identity of some kind. This use is especially common in the United States, and includes black nationalism and white nationalism in a cultural sense. They may overlap with nationalism in the classic sense, including black secessionist movements and pan-Africanists. Nationalists obviously have a positive attitude to their own nation, although this is not a definition of nationalism. The emotional appeal of nationalism is visible even in established and stable nation-states. The social psychology of nations includes national identity (the individual’s sense of belonging to a group), and national pride (self-association with the success of the group). National pride is related to the cultural influence of the nation, and its economic and political strength - although they may be exaggerated. However the most important factor is that the emotions are shared: nationalism in sport includes the shared disappointment if the national team loses. The emotions can be purely negative: a shared sense of threat can unify the nation. However, dramatic events, such as defeat in war, can qualitatively affect national identity and attitudes to non-national groups. The defeat of Germany in World War I, and the perceived humiliation by the Treaty of Versailles, economic crisis and hyperinflation, created a climate for xenophobia, revanchism, and the rise of Nazism. The solid bourgeois patriotism of the pre-1914 years, with the Kaiser as national father-figure, was no longer relevant.

Post-2001 nationalism in the United States

Kaiser]] The September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States led to a wave of nationalist expression. While there was a groundswell of international outrage over the attacks and support for the American public after the attacks, the United States nationalism has been difficult for some outside of the United States. Modern Western Europeans, particularly in the United Kingdom and Germany, have tended to view any ostentatious display of flags and national symbols as excessive. Many believe that the surge in nationalism enabled a number of major changes in national policy. The USA PATRIOT Act, which was signed into law on October 26, 2001, was designed to combat terrorism, but is considered by many to constitute a harmful assault on civil liberties. It is also possible that the nationalist surge created a political climate favorable for the George W. Bush administration in the lead up to wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Like almost all wars, the conflicts themselves appear to have increased nationalist feeling. As casualties have mounted and opposition to the war has increased, a pattern seen earlier in the Vietnam War has reemerged: those in favor of war consider that those who oppose it are unpatriotic, or even outright traitors. Several commentators supportive of the war have indicated they feel that news that paints the US in a negative light is giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Since war opponents tend to resent such accusations, the political debate has taken place in an atmosphere of increasing anger.

Patriotism and extremism

Vietnam War Although nationalism influences many aspects of life in stable nation-states, its presence is often invisible, since the nation-state is taken for granted. Michael Billig speaks of Banal nationalism, the everyday, less visible forms of nationalism, which shape the minds of a nation's inhabitants, on a day to day basis. Attention concentrates on extreme aspects, and on nationalism in unstable regions. Nationalism may be used as a derogatory label, for groups which may be no more nationalist than the rest of the population. In western democracies, xenophobic and anti-immigrant groups often refer to themselves as nationalist, to avoid the even more pejorative term racist. These parties may have a large electorate, and be represented in parliament. Smaller but highly visible groups, such as nationalist skinheads, also self-identify in this way, although it may be a euphemism for national-socialist or white supremacist. Activists in other countries are often referred to as ultra-nationalists, with a clearly pejorative meaning. In Continental Europe, nationalism refers more to an ethnic group or nation, while patriotism connotes a state or country, and sometimes its government. See also chauvinism and jingoism. jingoism Nationalism is a component of other political ideologies, and above all fascism, and the term extremism is often used in this context. However it is not accurate to simply describe fascism as a more extreme form of nationalism. Fascism in the general sense, and the Italian original, were marked by a strong combination of ethnic nationalism and state nationalism. That was certainly evident in Nazism. However the geopolitical aspirations of Adolf Hitler are probably better described as imperialist, and Nazi Germany ultimately ruled over vast areas where there was no historic German presence. The Nazi state was so different from the typical European nation-state, that it was sui generis (requires a category of its own). That could be said of Stalinism as well. Josef Stalin was an expert on nationalism, and his definition of a nation is quoted in all theoretical works. Under his regime, the Soviet Union