Misclassifying parties as radical right / right wing populist: a comparative analysis of New Zealand First

IF 1.2 4区 社会学 Q3 POLITICAL SCIENCE
Todd Donovan
{"title":"Misclassifying parties as radical right / right wing populist: a comparative analysis of New Zealand First","authors":"Todd Donovan","doi":"10.1080/00323187.2020.1855992","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT New Zealand First is occasionally misclassified as a ‘radical right’ and/or ‘right-wing populist party.’ This presents an opportunity to examine how parties might be placed into this family of parties. This paper draws from literature describing parties to propose five criteria to classify a party as radical right/right-wing populist, in part based on views in the electorate. Criteria include: (1) An intersection of populist style and antipathy to immigration; (2) Cultural authoritarianism; (3) Political authoritarianism; (4) Supporters who identify as right-wing; and (5) An electorate that views the party as far right. This study concludes that apart from perhaps two of these criteria, including the least discriminating, New Zealand First was not radical right/right wing populist. More broadly, this study expands on our understanding of ‘radical right’ and/or ‘right-wing populist’ parties by illustrating that the US Republican party, although classified less often with European radical right populist parties than New Zealand First, should be classified as such.","PeriodicalId":20275,"journal":{"name":"Political Science","volume":"72 1","pages":"58 - 76"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2020-05-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/00323187.2020.1855992","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Political Science","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00323187.2020.1855992","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

ABSTRACT New Zealand First is occasionally misclassified as a ‘radical right’ and/or ‘right-wing populist party.’ This presents an opportunity to examine how parties might be placed into this family of parties. This paper draws from literature describing parties to propose five criteria to classify a party as radical right/right-wing populist, in part based on views in the electorate. Criteria include: (1) An intersection of populist style and antipathy to immigration; (2) Cultural authoritarianism; (3) Political authoritarianism; (4) Supporters who identify as right-wing; and (5) An electorate that views the party as far right. This study concludes that apart from perhaps two of these criteria, including the least discriminating, New Zealand First was not radical right/right wing populist. More broadly, this study expands on our understanding of ‘radical right’ and/or ‘right-wing populist’ parties by illustrating that the US Republican party, although classified less often with European radical right populist parties than New Zealand First, should be classified as such.
错误地将政党归类为激进右翼/右翼民粹主义:新西兰优先的比较分析
新西兰优先党有时被错误地归类为“激进右翼”和/或“右翼民粹主义政党”。“这提供了一个机会来研究如何将政党纳入这个政党大家庭。”本文从描述政党的文献中提取,提出了将政党分类为激进右翼/右翼民粹主义的五个标准,部分基于选民的观点。标准包括:(1)民粹主义风格和对移民的反感交织在一起;(2)文化威权主义;(3)政治威权主义;(4)右派支持者;(5)选民认为该党极右。这项研究得出的结论是,除了可能有两个标准,包括最不歧视,新西兰优先党不是激进的右翼/右翼民粹主义者。更广泛地说,这项研究扩展了我们对“激进右翼”和/或“右翼民粹主义”政党的理解,说明了美国共和党虽然不像新西兰优先党那样经常被归类为欧洲激进右翼民粹主义政党,但应该被归类为这样的政党。
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
Political Science
Political Science POLITICAL SCIENCE-
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
13
期刊介绍: Political Science publishes high quality original scholarly works in the broad field of political science. Submission of articles with a regional focus on New Zealand and the Asia-Pacific is particularly encouraged, but content is not limited to this focus. Contributions are invited from across the political science discipline, including from the fields of international relations, comparative politics, political theory and public administration. Proposals for collections of articles on a common theme or debate to be published as special issues are welcome, as well as individual submissions.
×
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