Skip to main content
×
Home
    • Aa
    • Aa
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 19
  • Cited by
    This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by CrossRef.

    Jou, Willy 2016. Ideological radicalism and democratic experience in new democracies. Democratization, Vol. 23, Issue. 4, p. 592.


    Jou, Willy and Endo, Masahisa 2016. Generational Gap in Japanese Politics.


    Einstein, Katherine Levine and Glick, David M. 2015. Do I Think BLS Data are BS? The Consequences of Conspiracy Theories. Political Behavior, Vol. 37, Issue. 3, p. 679.


    Faust, Jörg and Garcia, Maria Melody 2014. With or Without Force? European Public Opinion on Democracy Promotion. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, Vol. 52, Issue. 4, p. 861.


    Milburn, Michael A. Niwa, Miho and Patterson, Marcus D. 2014. Authoritarianism, Anger, and Hostile Attribution Bias: A Test of Affect Displacement. Political Psychology, Vol. 35, Issue. 2, p. 225.


    Visser, Mark Lubbers, Marcel Kraaykamp, Gerbert and Jaspers, Eva 2014. Support for radical left ideologies in Europe. European Journal of Political Research, Vol. 53, Issue. 3, p. 541.


    VAN HIEL, ALAIN 2012. A psycho-political profile of party activists and left-wing and right-wing extremists. European Journal of Political Research, Vol. 51, Issue. 2, p. 166.


    de Regt, Sabrina Mortelmans, Dimitri and Smits, Tim 2011. Left-wing authoritarianism is not a myth, but a worrisome reality. Evidence from 13 Eastern European countries. Communist and Post-Communist Studies, Vol. 44, Issue. 4, p. 299.


    Dunn, Kris 2011. Left-Right identification and education in Europe: A contingent relationship. Comparative European Politics, Vol. 9, Issue. 3, p. 292.


    Jost, John T. 2009. “Elective Affinities”: On the Psychological Bases of Left–Right Differences. Psychological Inquiry, Vol. 20, Issue. 2-3, p. 129.


    Skitka, Linda J. and Bauman, Christopher W. 2008. Moral Conviction and Political Engagement. Political Psychology, Vol. 29, Issue. 1, p. 29.


    Van Hiel, Alain Duriez, Bart and Kossowska, Malgorzata 2006. The Presence of Left-Wing Authoritarianism in Western Europe and Its Relationship with Conservative Ideology. Political Psychology, Vol. 27, Issue. 5, p. 769.


    Brauer, Markus Chambres, Patrick Niedenthal, Paula M. and Chatard-Pannetier, Angélique 2004. The Relationship Between Expertise and Evaluative Extremity: The Moderating Role of Experts' Task Characteristics.. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 86, Issue. 1, p. 5.


    Jost, John T. Glaser, Jack Kruglanski, Arie W. and Sulloway, Frank J. 2003. Exceptions that prove the rule--Using a theory of motivated social cognition to account for ideological incongruities and political anomalies: Reply to Greenberg and Jonas (2003).. Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 129, Issue. 3, p. 383.


    Mullen, Elizabeth Bauman, Christopher W. and Skitka, Linda J. 2003. Avoiding the Pitfalls of Politicized Psychology. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, Vol. 3, Issue. 1, p. 171.


    Skitka, Linda J. Mullen, Elizabeth Griffin, Thomas Hutchinson, Susan and Chamberlin, Brian 2002. Dispositions, scripts, or motivated correction?: Understanding ideological differences in explanations for social problems.. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 83, Issue. 2, p. 470.


    Redding, Richard E. 2001. Sociopolitical diversity in psychology: The case for pluralism.. American Psychologist, Vol. 56, Issue. 3, p. 205.


    Durrheim, Kevin 1998. The relationship between tolerance of ambiguity and attitudinal conservatism: a multidimensional analysis. European Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 28, Issue. 5, p. 731.


    LINDSTRÖM, PER 1995. Falsifiability of political opinions. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, Vol. 36, Issue. 3, p. 295.


    ×

Similarities and Differences Between Left-Wing and Right-Wing Radicals

Abstract

Although some scholars have argued that authoritarianism is characteristic only of the right and not of the left, persuasive reasons exist for doubting this claim. Intuitive observation of left-wing and right-wing regimes as well as radical political movements of the left and right reveals striking parallels in their styles of political engagement, their reliance upon force, their disdain for democratic ideals and practices and their violations of civil liberties. In addition, systematic inquiry into the similarities and differences between far-left and far-right radicals in the United States has been hampered by various methodological difficulties. One can list, among these, such problems as the obvious inappropriateness of the F scale (owing to its strong right-wing content) as a measure for identifying left-wing authoritarians; the difficulty of obtaining adequate samples of true believers of the extreme left and right; the self-image of the American left as a persecuted minority which, for reasons of self-interest, spuriously inflates the degree of support expressed by its members for individual rights and liberties; and the exposure of both extreme camps to the liberal democratic values dominating American political culture, which unmistakably colours their political rhetoric.

We have reason to think that a similar study conducted in some – perhaps many – European countries would reveal even greater similarities between the far left and far right than we have turned up in the United States. Unlike the United States, which has enjoyed a strong liberal democratic tradition that has served to weaken and soften the intensity of its radical movements, a number of European countries, less wedded to liberal democratic principles, have developed a more vigorous, less diluted tradition of radical politics. These nations have long had to contend with powerful extremist movements actively and significantly engaged in the political struggles of their respective nations. The radical movements of Europe have been more extreme and zealous – more unequivocally revolutionary and reactionary – than the radical movements of the United States. The sustained confrontation of these extremist movements, in our view, is likely to have intensified the authoritarian propensities of each.

In the present article, through a series of surveys in which we have tried to idenify, as best we can, supporters of the far left and far right, we have systematically compared the two camps on a variety of political and psychological characteristics. We find, in keeping with the conventional view, that the far left and the far right stand at opposite end of the familiar left–right continuum on many issues of public policy, political philosophy and personal belief. They hold sharply contrasting views on questions of law and order, foreign policy, social welfare, economic equality, racial equality, women's rights, sexual freedom, patriotism, social conventions, religion, family values and orientations towards business, labour and private enterprise.

Nevertheless, while the two camps embrace different programmatic beliefs, both are deeply estranged from certain features of American society and highly critical of what they perceive as the spiritual and moral degeneration of American institutions. Both view American society as dominated by conspiratorial forces that are working to defeat their respective ideological aims.

The degree of their alienation is intensified by the zealous and unyielding manner in which they hold their beliefs. Both camps possess an inflexible psychological and political style characterized by the tendency to view social and political affairs in crude, unambiguous and stereotypical terms. They see political life as a conflict between ‘us’ and ‘them’, a struggle between good and evil played out on a battleground where compromise amounts to capitulation and the goal is total victory.

The far left and the far right also resemble each other in the way they pursue their political goals. Both are disposed to censor their opponents, to deal harshly with enemies, to sacrifice the well-being even of the innocent in order to serve a ‘higher purpose’, and to use cruel tactics if necessary to ‘persuade’ society of the wisdom of their objectives. Both tend to support (or oppose) civil liberties in a highly partisan and self-serving fashion, supporting freedom for themselves and for the groups and causes they favour while seeking to withhold it from enemies and advocates of causes they dislike.

In sum, when the views of the far left and far right are evaluated against the standard left–right ideological dimension, they can appropriately be classifled at opposite ends of the political spectrum. But when the two camps are evaluated on questions of political and psychological style, the treatment of political opponents, and the tactics that they are willing to employ to achieve their ends, the display many parallels that can rightly be labelled authoritarian.

Copyright
Linked references
Hide All

This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.

Gabriel Almond , The Appeals of Communism (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1954)

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

British Journal of Political Science
  • ISSN: 0007-1234
  • EISSN: 1469-2112
  • URL: /core/journals/british-journal-of-political-science
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×