Beyond liberal and conservative: Two-dimensional conceptions of ideology and the structure of political attitudes and values

Abstract

This article analyzes conceptual similarities and differences in selected prior work on ideological multi-dimensionality and finds substantial conceptual convergence accompanied by some provocative divergence. The article also finds that evidence from a recent survey of the American public largely validates areas of conceptual convergence. Respondents' political attitudes vary in two dimensions that are associated with different value structures-specifically, with different rankings of liberty, order, and 'caring for those who need help'. As a result, liberals, conservatives, and libertarians are identified more fully than previously possible. But the evidence does not allow the validation of one conception over another in the area where they diverge most markedly. Does the fourth ideological type value order and equality, making them 'communitarians', or are these respondents better understood as a humanitarian, paternalistic, hierarchical subtype, the 'inclusive social hierarch', since they value order as well as 'caring for those who need help'?Although politicians, philosophers, and social scientists often discuss politics as if it were organized on a single left-right dimension, 50 years of research on public opinion shows that a unidimensional model of ideology is a poor description of political attitudes for the overwhelming proportion of people virtually everywhere. 1

How Radical Is Too Radical? Public Perception of Taiwanese Environmental Nonprofit Organizations’ Activism*

“…Therefore, egalitarians are more likely than other cultural types to support environmental activities regardless of whether the activities are protest based or not. Individualists, as discussed, value personal freedom and interest more than collective good and external regulation such as environmental protection and environmental regulation (Ellis and Thompson, ; Swedlow, , ). Therefore, individualists are less likely to have positive thoughts about environmental activities that may increase regulation.…”

Reason for Hope? The Spotted Owl Injunctions and Policy Change

“…Moreover, they worried that federal courts would defer to Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) expertise in interpreting the ESA, and that the FWS would not be able to enforce their interpretations against the stronger land management agencies, the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The SCLDF's primary challenge was not to find ways to make claims based on constitutional rights, but to find statutes that would allow them to mount their scientific critique of owl management plans directly against federal land managers, without provoking congressional amendment of those statutes (Yaffee 1994, 115-16;Swedlow 2003, 202-06;2002a).…”

“…Stabilizing factual claims into something solid, immutable, and "constitutional" required federal courts to privilege certain factual claims about the owl over others. The Ninth Circuit achieved this by intervening in and building on the struggle for scientific authority that intersected and was, in part, conducted through the owl litigation (Swedlow 2002a(Swedlow , 2003(Swedlow , 2007. Before any fact-finding was done in the trial courts, a Ninth Circuit appellate panel wrote, "It was and is no secret that the northern spotted owl disappears when its habitat is destroyed by logging" (Portland Audubon Society v. Hodel 1988, 305).…”

“…The Ninth Circuit's construction of owl and forest facts, combined with an expansive reading of statutes and regulations protecting species, provided the doctrinal basis for its injunctions of federal timber sales and orders to undertake ecosystem management. Specific rulings in the owl cases are briefly described in the next section-and are detailed and critically assessed in Swedlow (2002aSwedlow ( , 2003-in the course of analyzing the operation of Constraint II.…”

“…2. Some of the direct and indirect impacts of the owl rulings are analyzed in Swedlow (2002a;see Haynes et al 2006). A full assessment of these impacts would require additional research, analysis, and space, and so has not been attempted here.…”