Extremism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Extremism means, literally, "the quality or state of being extreme" or "the advocacy of extreme measures or views".

 

The term is primarily used in a political or religious sense, to refer to an ideology that is considered (by the speaker or by some implied shared social consensus) to be far outside the mainstream attitudes of society. It can also be used in an economic context. The term is usually meant to be pejorative. However, it may also be used in a more academic, purely descriptive, non-condemning sense.
Extremists are usually contrasted with centrists or moderates. For example, in contemporary discussions in Western countries of Islam or of Islamic political movements, the distinction between extremist (implying "bad") and moderate (implying "good") Muslims is typically stressed.

Political agendas perceived as extremist often include those from the far-left politics or far-right politics as well as radicalism, reactionism, fundamentalism and fanaticism.

Definitions

There have been many different definitions of "extremism". Peter T. Coleman and Andrea Bartoli give observation of definitions: Extremism is a complex phenomenon, although its complexity is often hard to see. Most simply, it can be defined as activities (beliefs, attitudes, feelings, actions, strategies) of a character far removed from the ordinary. In conflict settings it manifests as a severe form of conflict engagement. However, the labeling of activities, people, and groups as "extremist", and the defining of what is "ordinary" in any setting is always a subjective and political matter. Thus, we suggest that any discussion of extremism be mindful of the following: Typically, the same extremist act will be viewed by some as just and moral (such as pro-social "freedom fighting"), and by others as unjust and immoral (antisocial "terrorism") depending on the observer's values, politics, moral scope, and the nature of their relationship with the actor. In addition, one's sense of the moral or immoral nature of a given act of extremism (such as Nelson Mandela's use of guerilla war tactics against the South African Government) may change as conditions (leadership, world opinion, crises, historical accounts, etc.) change. Thus, the current and historical context of extremist acts shapes our view of them. Power differences also matter when defining extremism. When in conflict, the activities of members of low power groups tend to be viewed as more extreme than similar activities committed by members of groups advocating the status quo. 

In addition, extreme acts are more likely to be employed by marginalized people and groups who view more normative forms of conflict engagement as blocked for them or biased. However, dominant groups also commonly employ extreme activities (such as governmental sanctioning of violent paramilitary groups or the attack in Waco by the FBI in the U.S.). 

Extremist acts often employ violent means, although extremist groups will differ in their preference for violent vs. non-violent tactics, in the level of violence they employ, and in the preferred targets of their violence (from infrastructure to military personnel to civilians to children). Again, low power groups are more likely to employ direct, episodic forms of violence (such as suicide bombings), whereas dominant groups tend to be associated with more structural or institutionalized forms (like the covert use of torture or the informal sanctioning of police brutality).

Although extremist individuals and groups are often viewed as cohesive and consistently evil, it is important to recognize that they may be conflicted or ambivalent psychologically as individuals, or contain difference and conflict within their groups. For instance, individual members of Hamas may differ considerably in their willingness to negotiate their differences with the Palestinian Authority and, ultimately, with certain factions in Israel. Ultimately, the core problem that extremism presents in situations of protracted conflict is less the severity of the activities (although violence, trauma, and escalation are obvious concerns) but more so the closed, fixed, and intolerant nature of extremist attitudes, and their subsequent imperviousness to change.

Theories of extremism

Eric Hoffer and Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. were two political writers during the mid-20th century who gave what purported to be accounts of "political extremism". Hoffer wrote The True Believer and The Passionate State of Mind about the psychology and sociology of those who join "fanatical" mass movements. Schlesinger wrote The Vital Center, championing a supposed "center" of politics within which "mainstream" political discourse takes place, and underscoring the alleged need for societies to draw definite lines regarding what falls outside of this acceptability. 

Seymour Martin Lipset argued that besides the extremism of the left and right there is also an extremism of the center, and that it actually formed the base of fascism.

Laird Wilcox identifies 21 alleged traits of a "political extremist", ranging from "a tendency to character assassination" and hateful behaviour like "name calling and labelling", to general character traits like "a tendency to view opponents and critics as essentially evil", "a tendency to substitute intimidation for argument" or "groupthink".

"Extremism" is not a stand-alone characteristic. The attitude or behavior of an "extremist" may be represented as part of a spectrum, which ranges from mild interest through "obsession" to "fanaticism" and "extremism". The alleged similarity between the "extreme left" and "extreme right", or perhaps between opposing religious zealots, may mean only that all these are "unacceptable" from the standpoint of a supposed mainstream or majority. 

Economist Ronald Wintrobe argues that many extremist movements, even though having completely different ideologies, share a common set of characteristics. As an example, he lists the following common characteristics between "Jewish fundamentalists" and "the extremists of Hamas":

• Both are against any compromise with the other side.
• Both are entirely sure of their position.
• Both advocate and sometimes use violence to achieve their ends.
• Both are nationalistic.
• Both are intolerant of dissent within their group.
• Both demonize the other side

Psychological

Among the explanations for extremism is one that views it as a plague. Arno Gruen said, "The lack of identity associated with extremists is the result of self-destructive self-hatred that leads to feelings of revenge toward life itself, and a compulsion to kill one's own humanness." Extremism is seen as not a tactic, nor an ideology, but as a pathological illness which feeds on the destruction of life. Dr. Kathleen Taylor believes religious fundamentalism is a mental illness and that is "curable."

Another view is that extremism is an emotional outlet for severe feelings stemming from "persistent experiences of oppression, insecurity, humiliation, resentment, loss, and rage" which are presumed to "lead individuals and groups to adopt conflict engagement strategies which "fit" or feel consistent with these experiences".

Extremism is seen by other researchers as a "rational strategy in a game over power", as described in the works of Eli Berman. 

In a 2018 study at University College London, scientists have demonstrated that people with extreme political views (both extreme right and extreme left) had significantly worse metacognition, or the ability of a person to recognize they are wrong and modify their views when presented with contrary evidence. People found on either of the political extremes were shown to have much greater (but misplaced) confidence in their beliefs, and resisted change.

Criticism

After being accused of extremism, Martin Luther King Jr. criticized the mainstream usage of the term in his Letter from Birmingham Jail, ″But though I was initially disappointed at being categorized as an extremist, as I continued to think about the matter I gradually gained a measure of satisfaction from the label. Was not Jesus an extremist for love…Was not Amos an extremist for justice…Was not Martin Luther an extremist…So the question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists we will be. Will we be extremists for hate or for love? Will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice or for the extension of justice?″

Barry Goldwater, in his 1964 acceptance speech at the 1964 Republican National Convention, said, "I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

Robert F. Kennedy said "What is objectionable, what is dangerous about extremists is not that they are extreme but that they are intolerant. The evil is not what they say about their cause, but what they say about their opponents." 

In Russia, the laws prohibiting extremist content are used (both by poorly trained officials and as part of an intentional politics to suppress opposition) to suppress the freedom of speech through very broad and flexible interpretation. Published material classified as "extremist", and thus prosecuted, included protests against the court rulings in the Bolotnaya Square case ("calling for illegal action"), criticism of overspending by a local governor ("insult of the authorities"), publishing a poem in support of Ukraine ("inciting hatred"), an open letter against a war in Chechnya by the writer Polina Zherebcova, the Jehovah's Witnesses movement in Russia, Raphael Lemkin, and articles by the initiator of the Genocide Convention of 1948.

Other terms

Since the 1990s, in United States politics the term Sister Souljah moment has been used to describe a politician's public repudiation of an allegedly extremist person or group, statement, or position which might otherwise be associated with his own party.

The term "subversive" was often used interchangeably, in the United States at least, with "extremist" during the Cold War period, although the two words are not synonymous.

Left–right political spectrum

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The left–right political spectrum is a system of classifying political positions, ideologies and parties, from equality on the left to social hierarchy on the right. Left-wing politics and right-wing politics are often presented as opposed, although a particular individual or group may take a left-wing stance on one matter and a right-wing stance on another; and some stances may overlap and be considered either left- or right-wing depending on the ideology. In France, where the terms originated, the Left has been called 'the party of movement' and the Right 'the party of order'. The intermediate stance is called centrism and a person with such a position is a moderate or centrist.

History of the terms

The terms "left" and "right" appeared during the French Revolution of 1789 when members of the National Assembly divided into supporters of the king to the president's right and supporters of the revolution to his left. One deputy, the Baron de Gauville, explained: "We began to recognize each other: those who were loyal to religion and the king took up positions to the right of the chair so as to avoid the shouts, oaths, and indecencies that enjoyed free rein in the opposing camp". However, the Right opposed the seating arrangement because they believed that deputies should support private or general interests but should not form factions or political parties. The contemporary press occasionally used the terms "left" and "right" to refer to the opposing sides.

When the National Assembly was replaced in 1791 by a Legislative Assembly comprising entirely new members, the divisions continued. "Innovators" sat on the left, "moderates" gathered in the centre, while the "conscientious defenders of the constitution" found themselves sitting on the right, where the defenders of the Ancien Régime had previously gathered. When the succeeding National Convention met in 1792, the seating arrangement continued, but following the coup d'état of 2 June 1793 and the arrest of the Girondins the right side of the assembly was deserted and any remaining members who had sat there moved to the centre. However, following the Thermidorian Reaction of 1794 the members of the far-left were excluded and the method of seating was abolished. The new constitution included rules for the assembly that would "break up the party groups". However, following the Restoration in 1814–1815 political clubs were again formed. The majority ultraroyalists chose to sit on the right. The "constitutionals" sat in the centre while independents sat on the left. The terms extreme right and extreme left as well as centre-right and centre-left came to be used to describe the nuances of ideology of different sections of the assembly.

The terms "left" and "right" were not used to refer to political ideology per se, but only to seating in the legislature. After 1848, the main opposing camps were the "democratic socialists" and the "reactionaries" who used red and white flags to identify their party affiliation. With the establishment of the Third Republic in 1871, the terms were adopted by political parties: the Republican Left, the Centre Right and the Centre Left (1871) and the Extreme Left (1876) and Radical Left (1881). The beliefs of the group called the Radical Left were actually closer to the Centre Left than the beliefs of those called the Extreme Left. Beginning in the early twentieth century, the terms "left" and "right" came to be associated with specific political ideologies and were used to describe citizens' political beliefs, gradually replacing the terms "reds" and "the reaction". Those on the Left often called themselves "republicans", while those on the Right often called themselves "conservatives". The words Left and Right were at first used by their opponents as slurs. 

By 1914, the Left half of the legislature in France was composed of Unified Socialists, Republican Socialists and Socialist Radicals, while the parties that were called "Left" now sat on the right side. The use of the words Left and Right spread from France to other countries and came to be applied to a large number of political parties worldwide, which often differed in their political beliefs. There was asymmetry in the use of the terms Left and Right by the opposing sides. The Right mostly denied that the left–right spectrum was meaningful because they saw it as artificial and damaging to unity. However, the Left, seeking to change society, promoted the distinction. As Alain observed in 1931: "When people ask me if the division between parties of the Right and parties of the Left, men of the Right and men of the Left, still makes sense, the first thing that comes to mind is that the person asking the question is certainly not a man of the Left". In British politics, the terms "right" and "left" came into common use for the first time in the late 1930s in debates over the Spanish Civil War. The Scottish sociologist Robert M. MacIver noted in The Web of Government (1947):

The right is always the party sector associated with the interests of the upper or dominant classes, the left the sector expressive of the lower economic or social classes, and the centre that of the middle classes. Historically this criterion seems acceptable. The conservative right has defended entrenched prerogatives, privileges and powers; the left has attacked them. The right has been more favorable to the aristocratic position, to the hierarchy of birth or of wealth; the left has fought for the equalization of advantage or of opportunity, for the claims of the less advantaged. Defence and attack have met, under democratic conditions, not in the name of class but in the name of principle; but the opposing principles have broadly corresponded to the interests of the different classes.

Ideological groupings across the spectrum

Generally, the left-wing is characterized by an emphasis on 'ideas such as freedom, equality, fraternity, rights, progress, reform and internationalism', while the right-wing is characterized by an emphasis on 'notions such as authority, hierarchy, order, duty, tradition, reaction and nationalism'.

Political scientists and other analysts regard the left as including anarchists, communists, socialists, democratic socialists, social democrats, left-libertarians, progressives and social liberals. Movements for racial equality and trade unionism have also been associated with the left.

Political scientists and other analysts regard the Right as including Christian democrats, conservatives, right-libertarians, neoconservatives, imperialists, monarchists, fascists, reactionaries and traditionalists. 

A number of significant political movements—including feminism and regionalism—do not fit precisely into the left-right spectrum. Though nationalism is often regarded as a right-wing doctrine, many nationalists favor egalitarian distributions of resources. There are also "liberal nationalists". Populism is regarded as having both left-wing and right-wing manifestations (see left-wing populism and right-wing populism). Green politics is often regarded as a movement of the left, but in some ways the green movement is difficult to definitively categorize as left or right.

Political parties in the political spectrum

Seating in the 2009 European Parliament
     European United Left–Nordic Green Left (35)
     Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats (184)
     European Greens–European Free Alliance (55)
     Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (84)
     European People's Party (265)
     European Conservatives and Reformists (54)
     Europe of Freedom and Democracy (32)
     Non-Inscrits (27)

Political scientists have observed that the ideologies of political parties can be mapped along a single left–right axis. Klaus von Beyme categorized European parties into nine families, which described most parties. Beyme was able to arrange seven of them from left to right: communist, socialist, green, liberal, Christian democratic, conservative and right-wing extremist. The position of agrarian and regional/ethnic parties varied. A study conducted in the late 1980s on two bases, positions on ownership of the means of production and positions on social issues, confirmed this arrangement.

There has been a tendency for party ideologies to persist and values and views that were present at a party's founding have survived. However, they have also adapted for pragmatic reasons, making them appear more similar. Seymour Martin Lipset and Stein Rokkan observed that modern party systems are the product of social conflicts played out in the last few centuries. They said that lines of cleavage had become "frozen".

The first modern political parties were liberals, organized by the middle class in the 19th century to protect them against the aristocracy. They were major political parties in that century, but declined in the twentieth century as first the working class came to support socialist parties and economic and social change eroded their middle class base. Conservative parties arose in opposition to liberals in order to defend aristocratic privilege, but in order to attract voters they became less doctrinaire than liberals. However, they were unsuccessful in most countries and generally have been able to achieve power only through cooperation with other parties.

Socialist parties were organized in order to achieve political rights for workers and were originally allied with liberals. However, they broke with the liberals when they sought worker control of the means of production. Christian democratic parties were organized by Catholics who saw liberalism as a threat to traditional values. Although established in the 19th century, they became a major political force following the Second World War. Communist parties emerged following a division within socialism first on support of the First World War and then support of the Bolshevik Revolution.

Right-wing extremist parties are harder to define other than being more right-wing than other parties, but include fascists and some extreme conservative and nationalist parties.

Green parties were the most recent of the major party groups to develop. They have mostly rejected socialism and are very liberal on social issues.

These categories can be applied to many parties outside Europe. Ware (1996) asserted that in the United States both major parties were liberal, even though there are left–right policy differences between them.

Usage in Western Europe

In the 2001 book The Government and Politics of France, Andrew Knapp and Vincent Wright say that the main factor dividing the left and right wings in Western Europe is class. The left seeks social justice through redistributive social and economic policies, while the Right defends private property and capitalism. The nature of the conflict depends on existing social and political cleavages and on the level of economic development. Left-wing values include the belief in the power of human reason to achieve progress for the benefit of the human race, secularism, sovereignty exercised through the legislature, social justice and mistrust of strong personal political leadership. To the right, this is regularly seen as anti-clericalism, unrealistic social reform, doctrinaire socialism and class hatred. The Right are skeptical about the capacity for radical reforms to achieve human well-being while maintaining workplace competition. They believe in the established church both in itself and as an instrument of social cohesion, and they believe in the need for strong political leadership to minimize social and political divisions. To the Left, this is seen as a selfish and reactionary opposition to social justice, a wish to impose doctrinaire religion on the population and a tendency to authoritarianism and repression.

The differences between left and right have altered over time. The initial cleavage at the time of the French Revolution was between supporters of absolute monarchy (the Right) and those who wished to limit the king's authority (the Left). During the 19th century, the cleavage was between monarchists and republicans. Following the establishment of the Third Republic in 1871, the cleavage was between supporters of a strong executive on the Right and supporters of the primacy of the legislature on the Left.

Contemporary usage in the United States

The terms left-wing and right-wing are widely used in the United States, but as on the global level there is no firm consensus about their meaning. The only aspect that is generally agreed upon is that they are the defining opposites of the United States political spectrum. Left and right in the U.S. are generally associated with liberal and conservative respectively, although the meanings of the two sets of terms do not entirely coincide. Depending on the political affiliation of the individual using them, these terms can be spoken with varying implications. A 2005 poll of 2,209 American adults showed that "respondents generally viewed the paired concepts liberals and left-wingers and conservatives and right-wingers as possessing, respectively, generally similar political beliefs", but also showed that around ten percent fewer respondents understood the terms left and right than understood the terms liberal and conservative.

The contemporary left in the United States is usually understood as a category that includes New Deal social-liberals (in contrast to traditions of social democracy more common to Western Europe), Rawlsian liberals and civil libertarians, who are often identified with the Democratic Party. There are also leftists who reject many of the platforms of the Democratic Party in favor of more socialist policies. In general, the term left-wing is understood to imply a commitment to egalitarianism, support for social policies that appeal to the working class and multiculturalism. The contemporary center-left usually defines itself as promoting government regulation of business, commerce and industry; protection of fundamental rights such as freedom of speech and freedom of religion (separation of church and state); and government intervention on behalf of racial, ethnic and sexual minorities and the working class.

Relevance of the terms today

Some political scientists have suggested that the classifications of "left" and "right" are no longer meaningful in the modern complex world. Although these terms continue to be used, they advocate a more complex spectrum that attempts to combine political, economic and social dimensions.

A survey conducted between 1983 and 1994 by Bob Altemeyer of Canadian legislative caucuses showed an 82% correlation between party affiliation and score on a scale for right-wing authoritarianism when comparing right-wing and social democratic caucuses. There was a wide gap between the scores of the two groups, which was filled by liberal caucuses. His survey of American legislative caucuses showed scores by American Republicans and Democrats were similar to the Canadian Right and liberals, with a 44% correlation between party affiliation and score.

Norberto Bobbio saw the polarization of the Italian Chamber of Deputies in the 1990s as evidence that the linear left–right axis remained valid. Bobbio thought that the argument that the spectrum had disappeared occurred when either the Left or Right were weak. The dominant side would claim that its ideology was the only possible one, while the weaker side would minimize its differences. He saw the Left and Right not in absolute terms, but as relative concepts that would vary over time. In his view, the left–right axis could be applied to any time period.

Libertarian writer David Boaz argued that terms left and right are used to spin a particular point of view rather than as simple descriptors, with those on the "left" typically emphasizing their support for working people and accusing the right of supporting the interests of the upper class; and those on the "right" usually emphasizing their support for individualism and accusing the Left of supporting collectivism. Boaz asserts that arguments about the way the words should be used often displaces arguments about policy by raising emotional prejudice against a preconceived notion of what the terms mean.

In 2006, British Prime Minister Tony Blair described the main cleavage in politics as not left versus right, but open versus closed. In this model, attitudes towards social issues and globalism are more important than the conventional economic left–right issues: "open" voters tend to be socially liberal, multicultural and in favour of globalism, while "closed" voters are culturally conservative, opposed to immigration and in favour of protectionism. This model has seen increased support following the rise of populist and centrist parties in the 2010s.

Neo-nationalism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Neo-nationalism or new nationalism is a type of nationalism that rose in the mid-2010s in Europe and North America and to some degree in other regions. It is associated with several positions, such as right-wing populism, anti-globalization, nativism, protectionism, opposition to immigration, opposition to Islam and Muslims and Euroscepticism where applicable. According to one scholar, "nationalist resistance to global liberalism turned out to be the most influential force in Western politics" in 2016. Particularly notable expressions of new nationalism include the United Kingdom's EU membership referendum and the election of Donald Trump as the 45th President of the United States.

Overview and characteristics

Writing for Politico, Michael Hirsh described new nationalism as "a bitter populist rejection of the status quo that global elites have imposed on the international system since the Cold War ended, and which lower-income voters have decided—understandably—is unfair." Michael Brendan Dougherty wrote in The Week that new nationalism is a "broad nativist revolt" against post-Cold War politics long "characterized by an orthodoxy of free trade, nurturing the service economy, neoliberal trading arrangements, and liberalized immigration policies."

The Economist wrote in November 2016 that "new nationalists are riding high on promises to close borders and restore societies to a past homogeneity." Clarence Page wrote in the Las Vegas Sun that "a new neo-tribal nationalism has boiled up in European politics and to a lesser degree in the United States since the global economic meltdown of 2008," and Ryan Cooper in The Week and researchers with the Centre for Economic Policy Research have linked 21st-century right-wing populism to the Great Recession. According to Harvard political theorist Yascha Mounk, "economic stagnation among lower- and middle-class whites [has been] a main driver for nationalism's rise around the globe." According to religion scholar Mark L. Movesian, new nationalism "sets the nation-state against supranational, liberal regimes like the EU or NAFTA, and local customs and traditions, including religious traditions, against alien, outside trends."

David Brog and Yoram Hazony wrote in National Review that some conservatives view the new nationalism associated with Brexit and Donald Trump as a betrayal of conservative ideology while they see it as a "return". According to conservative commentator Jonah Goldberg, the nationalism associated with Trump is "really little more than a brand name for generic white identity politics."

Writing for The Week, Damon Linker called the idea of neo-nationalism being racist "nonsense" and went on to say that "the tendency of progressives to describe it as nothing but 'racism, Islamophobia, and xenophobia'—is the desire to delegitimize any particularistic attachment or form of solidarity, be it national, linguistic, religious, territorial, or ethnic."

Regarding new nationalism, The Economist said that "Mr Trump needs to realise that his policies will unfold in the context of other countries’ jealous nationalism," and called nationalism itself a "slippery concept" that is "easy to manipulate". They also repeatedly contrasted ethnic nationalism and civic nationalism and implied new nationalism could become "angry" and difficult to control, citing Chinese nationalism as an example.

The new nationalism is closely connected to the rise of populism. A study by Yascha Mounk and Jordan Kyle of 46 populist leaders or parties which have been in power in 33 countries between 1990 and 2018 found that:

• populist governments manage to stay in power longer than non-populist governments: an average of 6 1/2 years versus 3 years;
• only a small minority" of populist governments leave power by the ordinary processes of the country involved, as opposed to impeachment or being forced to resign;
• half of all populist governments altered the country's constitution to make it easier for them to stay in power, for instance by removing term limits for the head of government;
• populist governments were responsible for "democratic backsliding", including a 7% decrease in freedom of the press, an 8% decline in civil liberties protection, and a 12% decrease in political rights;
• 5 of the 13 right-wing populist governments elected since 1990 brought about such backsliding, while 5 of the 15 left-wing populist governments did, effectively disproving the theory that the answer to right-wing populist government is left-wing populist government;
• of the 17 populist governments which came to power since 1990 which cannot easily be labelled as right-wing or left-wing, 5 brought about democratic backsliding, suggesting that populism itself, and not the ideology its connected to, is responsible for the observed effect;
• 40% of the heads of populist governments were indicted for corruption, despite their efforts to impede the investigations;
• on average, populist governments caused their countries to drop five places on the Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index.

Many of the countries in the study had relatively recently transitioned to democracy from authoritarian forms of government, so the results of the study may not necessarily apply to countries such as the United States with a long history of democratic government.

Associated politicians, parties and events

Brazil

The President of Brazil Jair Bolsonaro of the country's Social Liberal Party has been described as a leading new nationalist.

China

China's paramount leader Xi Jinping's (assumed office in 2012) concept of "Chinese Dream" has been described as an expression of new nationalism. His form of nationalism stresses pride in the historic Chinese civilisation, embracing the teachings of Confucius and other ancient Chinese sages, and thus rejecting the anti-Confucius campaign of Mao Zedong.

Egypt

Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi (assumed office in 2014), has been described as a new nationalist.

Hong Kong

The Hong Kong nationalism evolved from the localist movement in Hong Kong stresses the distinct Hong Kong identity as opposed to Chinese national identity promoted by the Beijing government and its growing encroachment on the city's management of its own political, economic and social affairs. The localist rhetorics, often mix with the nation's right to self-determination as well as anti-immigration stances against mainland immigrants and tourists, preserving local identity and culture similar to the Western new nationalism.

Hungary

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán (assumed office in 2010), the leader of the ruling Fidesz party, has been described as a new nationalist.

India

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi (assumed office in 2014) and his Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) have been referred to as new nationalist. Modi is a member of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), a right-wing paramilitary organisation aligned with the BJP, which has also been said to advocate a new nationalist ideology.

Yogi Adityanath, Chief Minister of the Indian state of Uttar Pradesh (assumed office in 2017), has also been identified as a new nationalist. He has been touted as a future Prime Minister of the country.

Israel

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (assumed office in 2009), the leader of the Likud party, has been described both as promoting new nationalism, and as pursuing a foreign policy of close ties with other new nationalist leaders, including Trump, Orbán, Salvini, Putin, Modi, Bolsonaro, Duterte and Sisi.

Domestically, Netanyahu has forged a political alliance with the nationalist Union of Right-Wing Parties.

Italy

Italian Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte (assumed office in 2018), head of the populist coalition Government of Change, and in particular Deputy Prime Minister and Interior Minister and the League's leader Matteo Salvini, were often described as new nationalists. Salvini has been described by some media outlets as the most powerful politician in the country, and a "de facto prime minister".

Giorgia Meloni, the leader of Brothers of Italy, a party supporting the government on a case-by-case basis, has also been described as a new nationalist.

Japan

The 63rd and current Prime Minister Shinzō Abe (assumed office in 2012), a member of the right-wing organisation Nippon Kaigi, has promoted ideas of new nationalism, as does the Liberal Democratic Party of Japan, which he leads.

Mexico

Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador (assumed office in 2018) has been described as Neo-nationalist and often dubbed as "Mexican Donald Trump" by the media.

Philippines

Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte (assumed office in 2016) has been described as a new nationalist.

Poland

The sixth and current President of Poland Andrzej Duda (assumed office in August 2015) is regularly cited as being a leading figure in the new nationalist movement within Poland. Furthermore, the ruling Law and Justice party, led by Jarosław Kaczyński, promoted nationalist views to win an outright majority in the national elections of 2015 (a feat never before accomplished). Despite not holding a government office, Kaczyński has been described as the figure who makes the "final call" on all major political issues in Poland.

Russia

President of Russia Vladimir Putin (second President of Russia from 2000 to 2008 and fourth President of Russia from 2012) has been labelled a new nationalist. Putin has been described by Hirsh as "the harbinger of this new global nationalism". Charles Clover, the Moscow bureau chief of the Financial Times from 2008 to 2013, wrote a book in 2016 titled Black Wind, White Snow: The Rise of Russia's New Nationalism. Russian nationalist thinker Aleksandr Dugin in particular has had influence over the Kremlin, serving as a adviser to key members of the ruling United Russia party, including now-SVR Director Sergey Naryshkin.

Russia has been accused of supporting new nationalist movements across Europe and in the United States.

Saudi Arabia

The Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, Mohammad bin Salman (assumed office in 2017), has been described by Kristin Diwan of The Arab Gulf States Institute as being attached to a "strong new nationalism". The "new Saudi nationalism" has been used to bolster support for the Kingdom's economic and foreign policies, and represents a shift away from the Kingdom's earlier dependence on religion for legitimacy. Many of the country's foreign policy actions from 2017 onwards, such as its blockade of Qatar and its diplomatic dispute with Canada have been described as motivated by this nationalism. The policies of Mohammad bin Salman's administration have been heavily influenced by his adviser Saud al-Qahtani, who has been described as a "nationalist ideologue" and whose role has been compared to that formerly of Steve Bannon.

Turkey

In 2014, Mustafa Akyol wrote of a new "brand of Turkish neonationalism" promoted by Justice and Development Party (AKP), the country's ruling party, the leader of which is President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan (assumed office in 2014). The Turkish "new nationalism" replaces the secular character of traditional forms of Turkish nationalism with an "assertively Muslim" identity.

Devlet Bahçeli, the leader of the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP), has been described as creating a "new nationalist front" by forming the People's Alliance with Erdoğan's AKP in 2018. The MHP is affiliated with the Grey Wolves paramilitary organisation, which Erdoğan has also expressed support for.

United Arab Emirates

The United Arab Emirates, under the leadership of Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi Mohammed bin Zayed (assumed office in 2004), has been described as propagating a "new Arab nationalism", which replaces the older, leftist form of the Arab nationalist ideology with a more conservative form, through its strong support for the rise of the respective new leaders of Egypt and Saudi Arabia, Abdel Fattah el-Sisi and Prince Mohammad bin Salman, as a means of countering Iranian and Turkish influence in the Arab states.

United Kingdom

The 23 June 2016 referendum in the United Kingdom to leave the European Union ("Brexit") has been described as a milestone of new nationalism. Owen Matthews noted similarities in motives for support of the Brexit movement and Trump. He wrote in Newsweek that supporters of both are motivated by "a yearning to control immigration, reverse globalization and restore national greatness by disengaging from the wide, threatening world".

Matt O'Brien wrote of the Brexit as "the most shocking success for the new nationalism sweeping the Western world". Leaders of the Brexit campaign, such as Nigel Farage, the former leader of the eurosceptic UK Independence Party (now of the Brexit Party); former London Mayor Boris Johnson; Vote Leave Co-Convenor Michael Gove; former Brexit Secretary David Davis; and European Research Group chairman Jacob Rees-Mogg, have been called "new nationalists".

United States

Donald Trump's rise to the Republican candidacy was widely described as a sign of growing new nationalism in the United States. A Chicago Sun-Times editorial on the day of the inauguration of Donald Trump called him "our new nationalist president". The appointment of Steve Bannon, the executive of Breitbart News (associated with the alt-right), as White House Chief Strategist, was described by one analyst as arousal of a "new world order, driven by patriotism and a fierce urge to look after your own, a neo-nationalism that endlessly smears Muslims and strives to turn back the clock on free trade and globalization, a world where military might counts for far more than diplomacy and compromise".

In the wake of Trump's election, U.S. Senator Marco Rubio has called for the Republican Party to embrace a "new nationalism" to oppose “economic elitism that has replaced a commitment to the dignity of work with a blind faith in financial markets and that views America simply as an economy instead of a nation."

Other countries

People

The following politicians have all been described in some way as being new nationalists:

Africa

• Hamid Chabat, former Mayor of Fez (2003–2015) and leader of the Moroccan Istiqlal Party
• Uhuru Kenyatta, President of Kenya (assumed office in 2013) and leader of the Jubilee Party of Kenya
• Mmusi Maimane, Leader of the Opposition (South Africa) and party leader of Democratic Alliance
• Herman Mashaba, Mayor of Johannesburg (assumed office in 2016) and member of the Democratic Alliance

Americas

• Mario Abdo Benítez, President-elect of Paraguay (2018–) and candidate from the Colorado Party
• Fabricio Alvarado Muñoz, the candidate from the Costa Rican National Restoration Party in the 2018 presidential election
• Horacio Cartes, former President of Paraguay (2013–2018) and candidate from the Colorado Party
• Iván Duque Márquez, President of Colombia (assumed office in 2018) and candidate from the Democratic Center
• Juan Orlando Hernández, President of Honduras (assumed office in 2014) and candidate from the National Party of Honduras
• Andrés Chadwick, Interior Minister of Chile (2012–2014; 2018–) and member of the Independent Democratic Union
• José Antonio Kast, Member of the Chamber of Deputies of Chile (2002–2018), independent presidential candidate in the 2017 presidential election and leader of Republican Action
• François Legault, Premier of Quebec (assumed office in 2018) and leader of the Canadian Coalition Avenir Québec
• Kellie Leitch, MP and 2017 candidate for the leadership of the Conservative Party of Canada
• Jimmy Morales, President of Guatemala (assumed office in 2016) and candidate from the National Convergence Front
• Kevin O'Leary, businessman and 2017 candidate for the leadership of the Conservative Party of Canada

Asia-Pacific

• Tony Abbott, former Prime Minister of Australia (2013–2015) and former leader of the Liberal Party of Australia
• Khaltmaagiin Battulga, President of Mongolia (assumed office in 2017) and candidate of the Mongolian Democratic Party
• Prayut Chan-o-cha, Prime Minister of Thailand (assumed office in 2014) and prime ministerial candidate of the Phalang Pracharat Party in the 2019 general election
• Peter Dutton, Home Affairs Minister of Australia (assumed office in 2017) and member of the Liberal Party of Australia
• Park Geun-Hye, former President of South Korea (2013–2017) and former leader of the Saenuri Party
• Kim Jong-Un, Supreme Leader of North Korea (assumed office in 2011) and leader of the Workers' Party of Korea
• Imran Khan, Prime Minister of Pakistan (assumed office in 2018) and leader of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf
• Winston Peters, Deputy Prime Minister of New Zealand (assumed office in 2017) and leader of New Zealand First
• Najib Razak, former Prime Minister of Malaysia (2009–2018) and former leader of Barisan Nasional and the United Malays National Organisation
• Hun Sen, Prime Minister of Cambodia (assumed office in 1998) and leader of the Cambodian People's Party
• Prabowo Subianto, leader of the Great Indonesia Movement Party and candidate in the 2019 presidential election
• Abdulla Yameen, former President of the Maldives (2013–2018) and leader of the Progressive Party of Maldives

Europe

• Santiago Abascal, member of Basque Parliament (2004–2009) and leader of VOX (2014–)
• Andrej Babis, Prime Minister of the Czech Republic (assumed office in 2017) and leader of ANO 2011
• Boyko Borisov, Prime Minister of Bulgaria (assumed office in 2009) and leader of GERB
• Robert Fico, former Prime Minister of Slovakia (2012–2018) and leader of Direction-Social Democracy 
• Kolinda Grabar-Kitarović, President of Croatia (assumed office in 2015)
• Nikola Gruevski, former Prime Minister of Macedonia (2006–2016) and former leader of VMRO-DPMNE
• Norbert Hofer, Transport, Innovation and Technology Minister of Austria (assumed office in 2017) and the candidate from the Freedom Party of Austria in the 2016 presidential election, which he lost by 46.2% to 53.8%
• Janez Janša, former Prime Minister of Slovenia (2012–2013) and leader of the Slovenian Democratic Party
• Panos Kammenos, former Defence Minister of Greece (2015–2019) and leader of the Independent Greeks
• Krasimir Karakachanov, Defence Minister of Bulgaria (assumed office in 2017) and leader of IMRO – Bulgarian National Movement
• Sebastian Kurz, Chancellor of Austria (assumed office in 2017) and leader of the Austrian People's Party
• Marine Le Pen, former leader of the French National Front and candidate in the 2017 presidential election
• Tomio Okamura, leader of the Czech Freedom and Direct Democracy
• Victor Ponta, former Prime Minister of Romania (2012–2015) and former leader of the Social Democratic Party
• Inger Støjberg, Danish Minister for Immigration, Integration and Housing (assumed office in 2015)
• Heinz-Christian Strache, Vice Chancellor of Austria (assumed office in 2017) and leader of the Freedom Party of Austria
• Aleksandar Vučić, President of Serbia (assumed office in 2017) and leader of the Serbian Progressive Party
• Geert Wilders, leader of the Dutch Party for Freedom
• Miloš Zeman, President of the Czech Republic (assumed office in 2013)

Middle East

• Muqtada al-Sadr, leader of the Iraqi Sadrist Movement

Parties

The following parties have all been described in some way as being new nationalist parties:

Asia-Pacific

• One Nation, which holds the balance of power in the Australian Senate (since 2016)

Europe

• Alternative for Germany
• The Danish People's Party, which provides parliamentary support for the governing coalition in Denmark (since 2015)
• The Finns Party, a former member of the governing coalition in Finland (from 2015 until party split in 2017)
• The Dutch Forum for Democracy
• The National Alliance, a member of the governing coalition in Latvia (since 2016)
• The Slovak National Party, a member of the governing coalition in Slovakia (since 2016)
• The Sweden Democrats
• The Swiss People's Party, a member of the governing coalition in Switzerland (since 2003)
• The United Patriots, a member of the governing coalition in Bulgaria (since 2014)
• The Flemish Vlaams Belang