ZENAF Arbeits- und Forschungsberichte : (ZAF)
Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Working Paper (13)
- Part of a Book (2)
- Article (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (16)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (16)
Keywords
- USA (8)
- Institutionalisierung (2)
- Multikulturelle Gesellschaft (2)
- Aufsatzsammlung (1)
- Bush, George W. (1)
- Demokratie (1)
- Einkommensumverteilung (1)
- Evangelikale Bewegung (1)
- Geschichte (1)
- Geschichte 1942-1990 (1)
Institute
2006,1
Although many observers consider the Bush administration’s “faith-based initiative” a unique breach in the wall of separation between church and state, close ties between the federal government and religious agencies are no novelty in the history of American public policy. Since the end of the Second World War, billions of dollars of public funds have been made available to religiously-affiliated hospitals, nursing homes, educational institutions, and social services - institutions which were regarded as vital to Cold War preparedness. By the same token, government use of religious foreign aid agencies, the donation of surplus land and military facilities to religious charities, and the funding of the chaplaincy in the armed forces have undergirded Cold War foreign policy goals. Based on the principle of subsidiarity, post-war public policy thus integrated religious groups into the framework of the welfare and national security state in ways which underwrote both the expansion of the federal government and the growth of religious agencies. Crucially, public funding relations involved not only mainline Protestant, Jewish and Catholic organizations, but also white evangelicals, who had traditionally been the most outspoken opponents of closer ties between church and state. Cold War Anti-Communism, the fear of Catholic or secularist control of public funds, and pragmatic considerations, however, ushered in the gradual revision of their separatist views. Ironically, the programs of Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society, so vilified by the Christian Right, pioneered many of the funding streams most beneficial to evangelical providers. Considering that since 1945 the sprawling and loosely organized evangelical movement has become the largest single religious faction in the US, and that conservative Protestants now form the most strongly Republican group in the religious spectrum, these findings are of particular importance. They suggest that Cold War state-building and the resurgence of Evangelicalism mutually reinforced each other in ways which have been largely ignored by scholarship on conservatism and its focus on the “backlash” against the political and cultural upheaval of the 1960s. Based on newly accessible archival materials and a comprehensive review of secondary literature, this paper suggests that the institutional and ideological ties between evangelicals and the state, which developed in the aftermath of the Second World War, are as important in understanding the political mobilization of conservative Protestants as the more recent “culture war” sentiments.
1995,3,1
1993,2
Der nachstehende Aufsatz ist Teil einer breiter angelegten Studie, an der ich derzeit im Rahmen eines Dissertationsvorhabens mit dem Titel: Ideologische Gruppierungen im arnerikanischen Kongress - Zur Rolle innerpateilicher Flügelorganisationen im U.S. Repräsentantenhaus, 1960-1990, arbeite. Die Diskussion der Veränderungen des Stils der Mandatsführung der amerikanischen Abgeordneten seit den 1960er Jahren ist in diesem Zusammenhang als eine wichtige Komponente des Versuchs zu verstehen, einen Erklärungsansatz für die Entstehung und Arbeitsweise der in dem Dissertationsprojekt untersuchten »ideological caucuses« zu formulieren.
2003,2 Teil 1
Proceeding chronologically in terms of the events covered, Raimund Schieß in his paper „Too close to call: CNN’s politics of captions in the coverage of the Florida Recount“ focusses on Nov. 11, 2000, when the Bush campaign applied to Miami Federal Court to stop the manual recount of ballots which had been started in some counties. The paper studies the discursive practices employed by the CNN journalists to construct a particular version of the events, focussing on captions, i.e. the lines of text inserted at the bottom of the tv screen, and on the way in which they interact with the other verbal and visual components of the television text. Raimund Schieß concludes that captions, far beyond providing mere details of a speech event (who is talking to whom about what, where and when), are used to select, to highlight and hide, and thus to invite a preferred interpretation of the event. He is also able to show that captions are often employed to exploit a story’s potential for drama and sensation. His detailed micro-analysis of the verbal and visual dimensions of the television text is supported by careful documentation of the data, either through screen shots or via transcriptions of the stretches of broadcast discussed.
2009,1
The paper aims at presenting research about Neo-Conservatism, in particular about the origin(s), history of development, ideas, and foreign policy goals. The core argument of the paper is that the discipline of International Relations (IR), in particular the North American Research and the Peace and Conflict Research, should take the Neoconservatives seriously. Three arguments can be made for this: First of all, Neoconservatives such as Robert Kagan, Charles Krauthammer, and Normen Podhoretz are participating in the debates about US foreign policy, and they introduce their ideas (e.g. "democracy promotion", "unipolar moment", and "benevolent empire") into the discourse. The foreign policy of the Reagan administration as well as the foreign policy of George W. Bush was highly influenced by neoconservative ideas. To sum up, Neo-Conservatism is the fourth influential school of US foreign policy beside Isolationism, Liberal Internationalism, and Realism. Secondly, Neoconservatives are proponents of a war-prone-US foreign policy, and advocates of the "war on terror" and the Iraq War. And finally, Neoconservatives are characterized by ideas, in particular the idea of democracy promotion, as the purpose of American politics and historic mission. Along with this, a neoconservative misunderstanding of IR theories becomes apparent. The "Democrat Realist" Krauthammer and the "Wilsonianist" Podhoretz both refer to "Realism", "Liberalism" and Wilson’s doctrine "to make the world safe for democracy" in a way which is not only misleading, but deceptive. Neoconservatives suggest that Realism is a sole power politics-theory without normative bias, and that the scholars of the liberal peace theory as well as Wilson and his successors claim for a policy of democracy promotion by using force and waging war. Against this background, a critical examination with Neoconservatism is presented in the paper. To reveal the neoconservative misunderstanding of IR discipline and its two important school of thoughts, the few similarities but numerous differences between Neo-Conservatism on the one hand and realist and liberal approaches in IR on the other hand are worked out.
1994,1
Inhalt: Vorbemerkung Multikulturalismus und der amerikanische consensus Hans-Jürgen Puhle Probleme der Institutionalisierung des Multikulturalismus Diskussionsbeitrag von Kurt L. Shell Anmerkungen zum Verhältnis von »Multiculturalism« und »Liberalism« in den USA Diskussionsbeitrag von Söhnke Schreyer Probleme der Institutionalisierung von Multikulturalismus im Politikfeld der Erziehung Diskussionsbeitrag von Ulrike Fischer Multikulturalismus im Bildungsbereich: Afrozentrismus Diskussionsbeitrag von Rüdiger Wersich Die in der vorliegenden Ausgabe der ZENAF Arbeits- und Forschungsberichte zusammengestellten Beiträge von Hans-Jürgen Puhle, Kurt L. Shell, Söhnke Schreyer, Ulrike Fischer und Rüdiger Wersich dokumentieren Aspekte einer in den zurückliegenden Semestern am ZENAF geführten Diskussion zur Problematik des Multikulturalismus in den USA. Die Diskussion begann anlässlich der Tagung der Sektion Politikwissenschaft der DGfA ("Die USA als multikulturelle Gesellschaft") in Frankfurt im November 1991. Im Sommersemester 1993 und im Wintersemester 1993/94 folgten zwei Diskussionsrunden im Rahmen des Jour Fixe des ZENAF unter dem Leitthema "Probleme der Institutionalisierung des Multikulturalismusll• Eine gemeinsame Diskussionsgrundlage bildete zunächst der in dieser ZAF-Ausgabe abgedruckte Aufsatz von Hans-Jürgen Puhle: "Multikulturalismus in den USA", der bereits (in englischer Fassung) als Vortrag auf der Jahrestagung der DGfA ("Multikulturalismus: Politische, soziale und kulturelle Konsequenzen am Beispiel der USA") in Berlin im Juni 1992 gehalten wurde. Die Publikation des Aufsatzes in einem von Berndt Ostendorf herausgegebenen Sammelband (''Multikulturelle Gesellschaft: Modell Amerika?", München) ist für 1994 vorgesehen. Die übrigen Beiträge dieser ZAF-Ausgabe sind überarbeitete Versionen von Kurz-Statements, die von den Autoren für die beiden Diskussions-Veranstaltungen am ZENAF vorbereitet wurden. Die angeregte und intensive Diskussion, an der sich eine erfreulich große Zahl von Teilnehmern aus verschiedenen Fachbereichen der Kultur- und Sozialwissenschaften beteiligten, kann diese Zusammenstellung allerdings nicht in ihrer vollen Breite repräsentieren. Für das Sommersemester 1994 ist eine Fortsetzung der Veranstaltungen am ZENAF geplant, die weitere Fragen der Problematik der Institutionalisierung des Multikulturalismus aufgreifen soll.
2009,2
The privatization of Old Age and Survivors Insurance and Disability Insurance was a top priority on president Bush’s domestic political agenda. Although Bush’s reform initiative has failed and president Obama has declared not to privatize social security, the system of public old age security in the United States is still in crisis, mainly because of demographic factors and the ensuing financial problems but also because of the recent and deep economic recession in the United States. This article reviews the initiative of the Bush-Administration to partially privatize social security and analyzes the main objectives behind Bush policy as well as the main arguments against and obstacles to it. By placing Bush politics of privatizing social security in a broader context of comparative welfare state reform, this article discusses the consequences of privatizing social security systems on equality and poverty, as well as on the legitimacy of the political system in general.