This paper examines the permanence of differences in the psychological underpinnings of ideological self-identifications. Previous research has suggested that conservatives differ from liberals insofar as their self-identifications as such are best explained as the product of a negative reaction (both to liberalism generally and to the groups associated with it in particular) rather than a positive embrace. However, this paper demonstrates that the dynamics underlying the formation of ideological self-identifications are not static reflections of inherent differences in liberal and conservative psychologies but rather evolve in response to changes in the political environment. Whereas feelings (positive or negative) toward liberalism played a decisive role in shaping individuals' ideological self-identifications during the New Deal/Great Society era of liberal and Democratic political hegemony, the subsequent resurgence of political conservatism produced a decisive shift in the bases of liberal and conservative self-identifications. In particular, just as conservative self-identifications once primarily represented a reaction against liberalism and its associated symbols, hostility toward conservatism and its associated symbols has in recent years become an increasingly important source of liberal self-identifications.Scholarship in the field of political psychology has suggested that the dynamics underlying the formation of liberal and conservative ideological self-identifications differ significantly. In particular, Conover and Feldman's (1981) analysis of the cognitive and symbolic sources of ideological self-identifications demonstrated that

SummaryAlthough the Organization of American States’ Inter-American human rights system has played a key role in the advancement of human rights, its work has recently become controversial. Some leftist governments have alleged bias, criticizing the system as a politicized one that prioritizes certain rights over others and embodies a neoliberal ideology that reflects disproportionate US influence. The system has also faced perceptions of cultural bias from Anglophone Caribbean states. This article tests the veracity of these allegations using statistical analysis of Inter-American Commission on Human Rights decisions. It finds that, even when controlling for a range of relevant factors, there have been significant differences in the Commission’s receptiveness to different types of claims of human rights violations. However, the Commission’s decisions have not exhibited any political or cultural biases. Also, to the extent there has been bias involving the United States, it has arguably been bias against the United States.

The overwhelming majority of unsuccessful petitions in the Organization of American States’ Inter-American human rights system are unsuccessful because they are dismissed at the pre-admissibility or admissibility phase rather than at the merits phase. Although this preliminary screening of applications constitutes the major obstacle to petitioners seeking justice, there has been relatively little scholarly analysis of the potential interplay of legal and attitudinal factors at this phase. That is, whether this phase may be where the biases that the system has been accused of (i.e., bias against leftist regimes and a “hierarchization” of negative rights and liberties over social justice) manifest themselves. This article fills this gap in the literature by undertaking a comprehensive quantitative analysis of Inter-American Commission on Human Rights admissibility decisions that measures the impact of a broad range of factors and compares the dynamics of admissibility decisions with those of merits decisions. In so doing, it places into context backlash against the system that has led to recent changes in the system’s procedures.

No abstract

No abstract