Einführung in die Vergleichende Politikwissenschaft · Week 12
The Radical Right Today
A slide-by-slide English translation and explanation of PDF pages 560–601, designed for a reader who has not studied the earlier weeks.
42PDF pages covered
31numbered lecture slides
5earlier-week bridges
13self-test questions
Source boundary: “Slide translation” reproduces the lecture’s claims in English. “Plain-English explanation” clarifies them. “Earlier-course context” draws only on the same uploaded course deck, especially Weeks 2, 3, 9, 10, and 11.
The lecture in one causal map
Social conflict & demand→Parties & movements mobilise→Institutions grant visibility→Legitimacy changes norms→Open support & polarisation
The lecture’s special contribution is the final half of the chain: political representation and public signals can change expression and competition, not merely reflect pre-existing preferences.
Earlier weeks you need
Week 2: comparative causal inference and synthetic control.
Week 3: treatment/control groups, survey experiments, natural experiments, media platforming.
Week 9: economic and libertarian–authoritarian conflict dimensions.
Week 10: parties organise social conflicts and position strategically.
Week 11: electoral systems and representation can feed back into attitudes.
No slides match the current filters.
Three comparisons to master
These are the conceptual boundaries most likely to be confused.
Mainstream right
Right-wing policy or ideology within the liberal-democratic consensus. It accepts pluralism, legal opposition, minority protection, and constraints on majority power.
Radical right
Accepts elections and majority rule, but rejects important liberal protections. It favours an anti-pluralist and majoritarian conception of the people.
Extreme right
Rejects democracy’s core principles, including popular sovereignty and democratic majority rule. The difference is the target of rejection, not just intensity.
Methods mini-lesson
The Week 12 evidence assumes method knowledge introduced earlier in the course.
Survey experimentRandomly expose respondents to different messages. Because assignment is random, outcome differences can be attributed more credibly to the message.
Quasi-experimentUse a real-world event or assignment process that approximates random treatment. Credibility depends on showing comparable groups and excluding rival explanations.
RDDCompare cases barely above and barely below a threshold. Near the cut-off, they should be similar except for receiving treatment, such as parliamentary entry.
Synthetic controlCreate a weighted “synthetic twin” from untreated cases that closely matches the treated case before the event, then compare their post-event paths.
Glossary
Use the search box above to filter the slide deck; this glossary remains visible as a quick reference.
Self-test
Choose an answer to reveal feedback. Refreshing the page resets quiz answers but preserves slide progress.
Essay-ready synthesis
Possible question: How can parliamentary representation contribute to the normalisation of radical-right support?
Define the actor. Distinguish radical from extreme right and identify nativism, authoritarianism, and populism.
State the puzzle. Representation may be caused by support, but it can also change later attitudes, expression, and competition.
Explain the norm mechanism. Entry provides information about other supporters and institutional legitimacy, reducing anticipated sanctions.
Use evidence. Bischof & Wagner: entry and polarisation through legitimacy, visibility, and backlash. Valentim: entry and more openly reported support through lower social costs.
Add strategic context. Mainstream accommodation and media platforming may reinforce salience and normalisation, though effects are context-dependent.
Conclude carefully. Increased public support need not mean complete private conversion; institutional and normative expression effects can be central.