Electoral Strategy or Historical Legacy? The CDU’s Reactions to Far-Right Parties in the Federal Republic of Germany, 1964–1990

IF 0.5 3区 历史学 Q1 HISTORY
Anna Berg
{"title":"Electoral Strategy or Historical Legacy? The CDU’s Reactions to Far-Right Parties in the Federal Republic of Germany, 1964–1990","authors":"Anna Berg","doi":"10.1017/ssh.2022.9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article investigates how established political parties react to the emergence of a far-right party. Prevailing approaches explain established parties’ reactions either as based on a spatial model of politics or as determined by historical trajectory and political culture. Neither approach sufficiently accounts for how party leaders choose between these competing motives for actions or how their strategizing might evolve over time. To complement existing approaches, I suggest understanding the emergence of far-right parties as a problem of interpretation. How parties react to far-right emergence depends on what kinds of heuristics they draw on to make sense of the phenomenon of far-right voting. To validate my approach, I study different stances Germany’s center-right Christlich Demokratische Union Deutschlands (CDU) has taken toward two far-right parties in postwar West German history: the Nationaldemokratische Partei Deutschlands (NPD), from 1964 to 1969, and the Die Republikaner (REP) from 1983 to 1990. Using archival material documenting internal deliberation, I argue that the social sciences have played a crucial role for how CDU leaders have evolved in their interpretation of far-right emergence. In the 1960s, party leaders drew from external social expertise on the far-right to discount the idea that the NPD was a resurgence of Nazism. In the 1980s, they were concerned with a reform project of their own party, leading them to grasp the REP through heuristics provided by scholarship on electoral strategizing. This resulted in a shift in strategies of repression against the NPD to strategies of demarcation versus co-optation against the REP.","PeriodicalId":46528,"journal":{"name":"Social Science History","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Science History","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/ssh.2022.9","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract This article investigates how established political parties react to the emergence of a far-right party. Prevailing approaches explain established parties’ reactions either as based on a spatial model of politics or as determined by historical trajectory and political culture. Neither approach sufficiently accounts for how party leaders choose between these competing motives for actions or how their strategizing might evolve over time. To complement existing approaches, I suggest understanding the emergence of far-right parties as a problem of interpretation. How parties react to far-right emergence depends on what kinds of heuristics they draw on to make sense of the phenomenon of far-right voting. To validate my approach, I study different stances Germany’s center-right Christlich Demokratische Union Deutschlands (CDU) has taken toward two far-right parties in postwar West German history: the Nationaldemokratische Partei Deutschlands (NPD), from 1964 to 1969, and the Die Republikaner (REP) from 1983 to 1990. Using archival material documenting internal deliberation, I argue that the social sciences have played a crucial role for how CDU leaders have evolved in their interpretation of far-right emergence. In the 1960s, party leaders drew from external social expertise on the far-right to discount the idea that the NPD was a resurgence of Nazism. In the 1980s, they were concerned with a reform project of their own party, leading them to grasp the REP through heuristics provided by scholarship on electoral strategizing. This resulted in a shift in strategies of repression against the NPD to strategies of demarcation versus co-optation against the REP.
选举策略还是历史遗产?基民盟对德意志联邦共和国极右翼政党的反应,1964-1990
摘要本文探讨了老牌政党如何应对极右翼政党的出现。主流的解释方法要么是基于政治的空间模型,要么是由历史轨迹和政治文化决定的。这两种方法都没有充分解释政党领导人如何在这些相互竞争的行动动机之间做出选择,或者他们的战略如何随着时间的推移而演变。为了补充现有的方法,我建议将极右翼政党的出现理解为一个解释问题。政党如何应对极右翼的出现,取决于他们利用何种启发式方法来理解极右翼投票的现象。为了验证我的方法,我研究了德国中右翼的德国民主联盟(CDU)在战后西德历史上对两个极右翼政党的不同立场:1964年至1969年的德国国家民主党(NPD)和1983年至1990年的德国共和党(REP)。通过使用记录内部审议的档案材料,我认为社会科学在基民盟领导人对极右翼崛起的解释如何演变中发挥了关键作用。在20世纪60年代,该党领导人从外部的极右翼社会专家那里吸取教训,驳斥了NPD是纳粹主义复兴的说法。20世纪80年代,他们对本党改革项目的关注,使他们通过学术选举策略提供的启发式来把握REP。这导致了对NPD的镇压策略转向了对REP的划界与合作策略。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
12.50%
发文量
31
期刊介绍: Social Science History seeks to advance the study of the past by publishing research that appeals to the journal"s interdisciplinary readership of historians, sociologists, economists, political scientists, anthropologists, and geographers. The journal invites articles that blend empirical research with theoretical work, undertake comparisons across time and space, or contribute to the development of quantitative and qualitative methods of analysis. Online access to the current issue and all back issues of Social Science History is available to print subscribers through a combination of HighWire Press, Project Muse, and JSTOR via a single user name or password that can be accessed from any location (regardless of institutional affiliation).
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信