Unit 7: Party Goals-Policy/Ideology

1. Unit 7: Party Goals-Policy/Ideology Readings: Ware CH 1 and Mueller and Strom pgs. 89-111

2. Guiding Questions • How do we classify political parties? • What are party families (familles spirituelles)? • How do party families compare on social and economic issues? • Can we use the concept of party families outside the European context?

3. Classifying Parties: Familles Spirituelles • A party’s ideology bases strongly shapes their policy positions. • Regardless of whether or not parties view policy goals strategically or sincerely. • Party “type” is often linked to a party’s stated ideology. • von Beyme 1985 • Examines ideological roots of parties rather than position along the ideological spectrum. • Identifies party groups in order of their ideological emergence. • Identifies nine party families (familles spirituelles)in the European context. • Laver and Hunt 1992 • Measures ideology on two scales: stance on public ownership (left-right) and stance on social issues. • Allows for comparison within and across party families.

4. Liberal/Radical Parties • Developed in the late 19th century. • Formed by bourgeoisie to protect interests against landowners who controlled the state. • Wanted to remove state restrictions on means of production and promote a separation of state and society. • Often favored extension of the franchise (especially Radical parties). • Center-left on social issues (7.9), right on economics (15.3). • Electoral appeal: middle classes, business owners

5. Conservative Parties • Opposed extension of the franchise in response to Liberal/Radical parties. • Historically opposed to social change. • Focus on national honor; paternalistic view of society. • Right on economics (15.8), right on social policies (12.2). • New Right issues have changed some of these appeals particularly in terms of the market. • Many modern conservative parties take a very free market approach to the economy. • Electoral appeal: middle and upper classes.

6. Socialist/Social Democratic Parties • Formed as working classes organized. • Sought the extension of the franchise and public ownership of the means of production. • Modern variants accept the free market. • Seek a social safety net to protect those affected by globalization • Movement split after WW1 as communist parties formed. • Affirmed support for liberal democratic institutions following WWII. • Ideological placement: Economic 8.2, Social 6.3 • Electoral appeals: Working and lower middle classes

7. Christian Democratic Parties • Formed by Catholic groups in response to secularism. • Organized to compete against socialist parties. • Gained momentum after WWII. • Right of center on social issues (15.5), more centrist on economics (13.9) • Favors a more active role for government in the economy than conservative parties. • Shift towards the right in recent years on economic issues. • Electoral appeal: Catholic workers, middle classes

8. Communist Parties • Took direction from Moscow until the collapse of the USSR. • Collapse of the USSR has resulted in a change in name and ideology of many of these parties. • Favored public ownership (3.1) and permissive social policy (4.8). • But also accepted democratic institutions both during and after the Cold War. • Many have transformed into credible social democratic parties • Example: PDS in Germany, PCI in Italy • Other movements associated with the far left are shifting towards anti-capitalist appeals • Example: NPA in France • Electoral appeal: youth, unemployed, working classes.

9. Agrarian Parties • Small farming and peasant based parties formed in response to industrialization. • Mainly formed in Scandinavia and Eastern European countries. • Generally right of center on both economic and social issues, but usually absorbed by other parties of the right. • Changes in political orientation make it difficult to classify them as a group. • Electoral appeals: agricultural interests, middle classes.

10. Regional/Ethnic Parties • Represent regional or ethnic minority groups within societies. • Apresence since the 1960’s where movements are not absorbed by larger parties. • Many merge nationalism (generally associated with the right), with center left stances on economic and social policy. • Difficult to classify on the left-right spectrum. • Electoral appeals: nationalists.

11. Extreme Right Parties • Generally associated with anti-immigrant, extreme nationalist, anti-government and anti-tax philosophies. (Economic 18.5, Social 19) • Right of center placement on both social and economic policies. • Many have roots in fascism (authoritarian state to protect national ideals). • Although modern far right parties are generally not anti system parties (change from the interwar era); • Anti-Islamic appeals have boosted their vote totals in recent elections. • Stance typically means they are not invited to join coalitions. • Example: PVV in the Netherlands • Electoral appeals: working classes

12. Ecological/Green Parties • Newest party family. • Associated with post-materialist concerns (e.g. environment and quality of life issues). • Favor government intervention and international cooperation on ecological issues placing it on the left in terms of economic policy. • Center left on economic issues (8.0) and the most permissive on social issues (4.2). • Electoral appeals: youth, gay/lesbian voters, middle and upper middle classes

13. Party Family Positions Compared ECONOMIC POLICY SOCIAL POLICY • Communists 3.1 • Greens 8.0 • Socialists 8.2 • Christian Dem 13.9 • Liberals 15.3 • Conservatives 15.8 • Extreme Right 18.5 • Greens 4.2 • Communists 4.8 • Socialists 6.3 • Liberals 7.9 • Conservatives 12.2 • Christian Dem 15.5 • Extreme Right 19.0

14. Applicability outside of Europe:The Strange Case of the United States? • Aspects of both parties make classification difficult. • Broad tent rather than explicitly ideological parties. • Generally classified as liberal parties although they emphasize different strands of liberalism. • The terms “conservative” and “liberal” have taken on a different meaning in the US context. • US Democrats slightly outside the mainstream of European center left parties on economic issues. • US Republicans outside the mainstream of European liberal parties on social issues.

15. Conclusions: Other Developed Democracies Ware 1996 von Beyme works in some cases and not applicable in others. MIXED RESULTS: Ireland, Canada, Israel, Japan STRONG PATTERNS: Australia, New Zealand

16. Case Study: Spain • Examine: • The Socialists (PSOE) transformation from a policy-seeking to an office-seeking party • What variables are used to explain the shift? • How did the PSOE’s internal politics facilitate this process? • What tradeoffs were made to move away from a more policy-seeking model towards an office-seeking model?

17. Next Unit • Theme: Coalition Formation • Readings • Reserves: Lijphart and Laver and Schofield • Dalton and Wattenberg CH 9 • Case Studies: • Mueller and Strom pgs 36-62 OR 63-88 • Game: Coalections • Game: Coalections with Portfolios