Conservative Bloc Research Articles

Solidarity in social policy – the extent of drain risk

Solidarity is expected to be expressed in concrete action in specific situations. In modern welfare states, however, it has been made abstract in order to appeal to all citizens. Abstraction increases the risk that solidarity is drained of its meaning. Our hypothesis is that the extent of this risk differs between the two dominant political blocs in Sweden, the Social Democratic and the Conservative. It is examined through an analysis of how often solidarity is invoked in traditional newspapers representing these two blocs. When invoked in newspapers from the Social Democratic bloc, we interpret solidarity as being “inclusive”, which is what their ideology refers to. When invoked in newspapers from the Conservative bloc, we interpret solidarity as “exclusionary”, which is implied in their ideology. According to our theory inclusive solidarity is reciprocal and thereby reduces the drain risk, while exclusionary solidarity is characterized as a one-way relationship, which increases the drain risk. The study was carried out during a period when the government changed from Conservative to Social Democratic. According to our hypothesis this would increase the appeal of inclusive solidarity. However, our findings indicated the opposite, an increase in exclusionary solidarity. The conclusion is that the risk of solidarity drain is independent of which political ideology is in power.

Is the South Still Different?

For several decades southern Democrats constituted a conservative bloc within the Democratic caucus in the House of Representatives. After the enfranchisement of southern blacks in the J 960s and the development of a two party system in the South, many southern Democratic representatives began to compile more moderate voting records. By the 1980s, some scholars were emphasizing the greater unity of the Democratic caucus. This paper examines regional differences among House Democrats in several policy areas. It is argued that, on most issues, the Southern Democratic delegation is still a distinctly conservative bloc within the Democratic caucus.

Intra-conservative Bloc Contestations on Gender Equality in Turkey – Norm Reception in Fragmented Normative Orders

This research problematizes the contested nature of the global norm diffusion by focusing on intra-group rivalries and fragmentations shaping local responses (often reactionary and resistant) to global norms. Such an examination is important primarily to account for what leads to shifts in the local reception of norms over time. This study empirically explores local fragmentation, rivalry and change in response nexus in the example of the reception of the global gender equality norms in Turkey by the conservative normative bloc. It reveals that the conservative bloc is not a monolithic normative order and that there are two main competing receptions of the gender equality norm within the group in Turkey. With a firm emphasis on Turkey’s first initiating and later withdrawal from the Istanbul Convention, the study elaborates how the institutionalized conservative response to gender equality has shifted from a compromising acceptance to a rejection over time.

More Reward Than Punishment: Labor Resilience at Midcentury

More Reward Than Punishment: Labor Resilience at Midcentury

Authors’ Response

Authors’ Response

A Case Study of Descriptive Representation: The Experience of Native American Elected Officials in South Dakota

A Case Study of Descriptive RepresentationThe Experience of Native American Elected Officials in South Dakota Jean Reith Schroedel (bio) and Artour Aslanian (bio) Political equality, according to Sydney Verba, "refers to the extent to which citizens have an equal voice in governmental decisions" and encompasses not only voting but also being able to hold political office without having to overcome institutional and statutory barriers.1 Yet one of the most important themes in any recounting of American history is the ongoing struggle to make political equality a reality for all citizens. While extremely important, the post–Civil War Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments failed to halt state-level efforts to place limits on minority political participation. Nearly one hundred years later, Congress passed the 1965 Voting Rights Act (VRA), which prohibits voting practices that "deny or abridge the rights of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color."2 Particularly relevant for this discussion is section 5 of the VRA, which requires political jurisdictions with histories of discrimination to preclear changes in voting laws and regulations with the Department of Justice or the Circuit Court for the District of Columbia. The intent of this provision is to prevent voting rights violations before they might occur. The Impact of Shelby County v. Holder In 2013 the Supreme Court in Shelby County v. Holder held that Section 4(b) of the VRA, which establishes the formula for ascertaining whether a political jurisdiction would be required to obtain a Section 5 "preclearance" for changes in election procedures, is an unconstitutional violation of the "equal sovereignty of the states" because states are treated differently based on "40 year old facts that have no relationship to present [End Page 250] day."3 Without the section 4(b) formula, Section 5's preclearance cannot be enforced. The Court's 5–4 conservative bloc pointed to the substantial increase in African American elected officials within southern states as justification for their decision, but they ignored the role of preclearance in protecting the voting strength of African Americans by prohibiting the adoption of discriminatory voting procedures that would have stopped them from electing their own candidates. While numerous studies have shown a clear link between the VRA and increasing numbers of African American and Latino elected officials, the act's impact on Native Americans has garnered only a small amount of attention.4 Although Native Americans comprise only 2 percent of the nation's population, there are large numbers in some plains and mountain states, as well as in parts of the Southwest. Although Native Americans experience voting rights issues that are similar to those that affect other racial/ethnic minorities, we argue that there are important differences. literature review There is a large body of scholarship on the relative merits of descriptive representation, where the race, gender, or ethnicity of the representative mirrors that of his or her constituents.5 While researchers have linked descriptive representation with improvements in citizen-government interaction and increased voting turnout, there is a robust debate about whether minority representation translates into substantive benefits for the group.6 Research on African American and Latino state legislators shows that minority legislators are more likely to propose legislation of benefit to their constituents, but they often experience difficulties in getting the legislation passed.7 Not surprisingly, gaining legislative leadership positions increases the likelihood of getting such legislation passed.8 However, Robert Preuhs found that in racialized political contexts, minority legislators often are excluded from leadership positions; if they are excluded, then their ability to influence policy outcomes is minimal.9 These results vary depending upon the partisan makeup of the legislative body. Legislators from majority-minority districts have an advantage in gaining seniority, and if they are members of the dominant political party, that membership increases their chances of gaining leadership positions.10 On the other hand, if the legislature is dominated by [End Page 251] the opposition party, legislators often struggle due to being a double minority (i.e., both a racial minority and a member of the minority party), a situation that increases the likelihood of the legislative setting being highly racialized. Urban politics researchers also...

Online news diffusion dynamics and public opinion formation: A case study of the controversy over judges’ personal opinion expression on SNS in Korea

On the Internet, the line between news and opinion becomes blurred in terms of content and form. In this sense, the processes of news diffusion on the Internet and online public opinion formation are integrated. This study selects one Korean example about the private tweet of a judge about government social network service (SNS) regulation and analyzes citation networks from one news/opinion to another news/opinion. By relying on social network analysis (SNA) methods, this study examines how news/opinions diffuse and how they interact and influence each other's ideological frame within agencies sharing the same ideology and between agencies whose ideologies contrast. The results show that public discourse on the Internet is clearly polarized and fragmented along political ideological lines. Additionally, the findings show that the winner is the conservative bloc because it succeeds in achieving within-bloc solidarity and ensures the resonance of news frames with the cultural values of Korean society. Implications for these findings in modern democracy are also discussed.

Silencing Dissent: How Biased Civil Rights Policies Stifle Dialogue on Israel

Silencing Dissent: How Biased Civil Rights Policies Stifle Dialogue on Israel

Sex, Gender and the Making of the ‘Enemy Within’ in Cold War Argentina

This article studies the unfolding of a broad conservative bloc amidst the politico-cultural battles that took place in Cold War Argentina. Focusing on the unexplored gendered, sexual and generational dimensions of the figure of the ‘enemy within’, the article shows that this figure was at the core of a project which coincided with authoritarian practices emanating from the state and also from segments of civil society. The creation of that figure had significant effects, not only in the political but also in the educational and cultural realms, including the imposition of censorship and the delineation of restrictive sexual policies. Moreover, it conditioned the ways in which political repression developed in the context of 1970s state terrorism.

Justice Stevens and Constitutional Adjudication: The Law Beyond the Rules

This article, written for a symposium marking the retirement of Justice Stevens, considers his approach to equal protection and free speech cases. It contrasts his longstanding attempts to pierce through mediating doctrinal rules in these areas and apply true constitutional meaning (the law beyond the rules) with the more rule-bound approach exemplified by Chief Justice Roberts and other members of the Court’s conservative bloc. While appreciating Justice Stevens’ efforts in this regard, the Article also recognizes some of the problems he encountered in his quest. However, it also notes that the more rule-bound approach suffers from flaws of its own, even when judged against the criteria more rule-friendly justices offer to evaluate a given method of constitutional adjudication. Thus, whatever one might think of the ultimate success of Justice Stevens’ project, it is surely the case that the more rule-bound approach has not proven its clear superiority.

Taking The Fair Deal to the Fields: Truman’s Commission on Migratory Labor, Public Law 78, and the Bracero Program, 1950–1952

Abstract From 1950 to 1952 Harry S Truman invested significant personal effort and political capital in an effort to improve the circumstances of migratory farm workers and to revise the Bracero Program with Mexico. To this end, Truman created the high profile President’s Commission on Migratory Labor in American agriculture in 1950. In its report, the commission recommended extending a variety of social legislation and economic protections to domestic farm labor, and it further recommended slowing or ending the importation of foreign, particularly Mexican, workers. The Truman administration energetically worked to convince Congress to act on those recommendations, even enlisting the support of the Mexican government. However, the power of growers’ interests and the conservative bloc in Congress halted any significant reform. Instead, the Bracero Program was further institutionalized in the form of Public Law 78 and remained in effect for more than a decade thereafter.

Taking The Fair Deal to the Fields: Truman's Commission on Migratory Labor, Public Law 78, and the Bracero Program, 1950-1952

From 1950 to 1952 Harry S Truman invested significant personal effort and political capital in an effort to improve the circumstances of migratory farm workers and to revise the Bracero Program with Mexico. To this end, Truman created the high profile President's Commission on Migratory Labor in American agriculture in 1950. In its report, the commission recommended extending a variety of social legislation and economic protections to domestic farm labor, and it further recommended slowing or ending the importation of foreign, particularly Mexican, workers. The Truman administration energetically worked to convince Congress to act on those recommendations, even enlisting the support of the Mexican government. However, the power of growers' interests and the conservative bloc in Congress halted any significant reform. Instead, the Bracero Program was further institutionalized in the form of Public Law 78 and remained in effect for more than a decade thereafter.

The Court's Three Marshalls

The Supreme Court decisions in United States v. Lopez and U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton reveal sharp divisions among the Justices about the constitutional federalism of Chief Justice John Marshall. A four-Justice liberal bloc, which voted in both cases in favor of the national side of the federal balance, considers Marshall essentially nationalist. A four-Justice conservative bloc, which voted in both cases to limit the federal sphere, reads Marshall as a virtual dual federalist. Justice Anthony Kennedy provided the deciding votes, siding with the conservatives in Lopez and with the liberals in U.S. Term Limits. His concurring opinions interpret Marshall as recognizing the supremacy of the federal government while acknowledging judicially enforceable limits on the exercise of federal power. Kennedy's explanation for his apparently inconsistent votes in fact reflects most closely Marshall's theory of the role of the judiciary in upholding the balance of powers between the federal and state governments.

THE JURISPRUDENTIAL EVOLUTION OF JUSTICE DAVID SOUTER

During his first five years on the Supreme Court, Justice David Souter has not followed a straight ideological path and he has turned out to be more liberal than officials in the Bush administration predicted. This article describes Souter's jurisprudence in several important areas of constitutional law and identifies some of the factors that have influenced his jurisprudential evolution. During his freshman term, Justice Souter struggled to adjust to the workload of the Court and did little to establish a distinct judicial philosophy. By his second term, he became acclimated to the decision making process and began articulating a pragmatic approach to constitutional interpretation that has set him apart from the legal formalists on the Court. Additionally, Souter has responded to new appointees by moving away from the conservative bloc and consistently voting with Democratic appointees Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer who, together with Justice John Paul Stevens, are said to constitute the Court's liberal bloc.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and the Power or Maternal Legal Thinking

Sandra Day O'Connor, the first woman on the United States Supreme Court, has been criticized by some for failing to bring a woman's perspective to the Court, and by others for acting too much like the stereotypical woman who cannot make up her mind. Both criticisms overlook the possibility that O'Connor's impact as a female is derived from the fact that she is promulgating a very specific jurisprudence—that of the feminine. However, it is in employing this jurisprudence that she undermines the potential for both a feminist jurisprudence and for a cohesive conservative bloc on the Court.

Bureaucratic Authoritarianism in late Imperial Russia: The Personality, Career and Opinions of P. N. Durnovo

Peter Nikolayevich Durnovo1 was one of the ablest2 and most important senior officials to serve Nicholas II. As minister of the interior between October I905 and April I906 he more than any other individual was responsible for the suppression of the I905 revolution. Subsequently, as leader of the conservative bloc in the state council, Russia's upper house, Durnovo played a key role in sabotaging Stolypin's programme of reforms and thus undermining the 'constitutional experiment' of I905-I 7. Thus Durnovo's importance amply justifies the study of his opinions and of the various influences which shaped his political outlook. Such a study also, however, contributes to our understanding of the mentality of authoritarian and conservative high officialdom in the last years of the old regime. This, it is hoped,

Henry Cruger and Edmund Burke: Colleagues and Rivals at the Bristol Election of 1774

T THE British general election of October I774, fought on eve of outbreak of War of Independence, has been described as one in which the British electors passed judgement on Government which had expelled Wilkes and legislated against Boston. The administration of Lord North was defending itself from attack by groups representing all shades of opposition opinion. On government side, circumstances were more favorable than outspoken opposition criticisms in press and pamphlet might have suggested, because ministry, coalesced into new Conservative bloc, was able to take advantage of faction and inconsistency in opposition.' During election campaign, all sections of opposition joined in criticism of government's American policy, although differing widely in remedies they propounded.2 Thus, while Rockingham Whigs saw in George III's attempt to revitalize political power of throne a grave constitutional threat, and looked back to palmy days of Whig oligarchy which they vainly hoped to restore, adherents of Wilkes on other hand sought a remedy, as well for American crisis as for domestic problems, in a substantial measure of parliamentary reform. Situated somewhere between these extremes were supporters of other principal opposition group, led by Chatham. Although election was not held to test public opinion on any specific issue, shadow of American crisis hung over Britain. While ministry was probably trying to avert criticism of its policy which it anticipated would follow meeting of Continental Congress, it was nevertheless a favorable opportunity for a con-