Back in 2005 when I spent a month as a visiting scholar at Dresden Technical University in Germany, I was stunned to be told by several graduate students that in the rural areas of Saxony a quarter of voters supported so-called neo-nazi political parties and organizations. Now one of my favorite academic outlets, the International Journal of Public Opinion Research, features in its latest issue two essays debating the roots of public support for radical right parties in Europe. For those logging on from an academic or institutional gateway with a subscription, the two essays are well worth checking out.
Framing Science
What's Next in Public Engagement?
Search
Profile
Matthew C. Nisbet, Ph.D, is Associate Professor in the School of Communication at American University where his research focuses on the intersections among science, media, and society. E-MAIL: nisbetmc@gmail.com
Comment Policy
-
Keep it substantive, serious minded, on topic, and respectful.
Upcoming Talks
- 09.21.10 CNRS, Paris, France
- 08.23.10 Aldo Leopold Institute, Univ. of Minnesota
- 06.23.10 Aldo Leopold Institute, Stanford University
- 05.20.10 University Research Magazine Association,DC
- 05.12.10 Science Media Forum, Madrid, Spain
- 04.28.10 Science, Social Controversy, & Art, Banff, Canada
Spotlight on Research & Commentary
- Opinion leaders and climate change
- New directions in science communication
- Best practices in digital journalism
- Science media roles & responsibilities
- The framing of science debates
- Framing and the intelligent design controversy
- Public engagement on climate change
- Young Americans on climate change
- Reframing climate change as a public health issue: An exploratory study
- Covering the health risks of climate change: A news agenda-building analysis
- Time to chill out on ClimateGate
Sci-Comm Journals
Science News Agenda-Setters
- A. Revkin (Dot Earth)
- J. Broder (NYT)
- J. Eilperin(WPost)
- WPost Post Carbon blog
- C. Brainard (CJR)
- D. Samuelsohn (ClimateWire)
- C. Petit (MIT Tracker)
- S. Vedantam (WPost)
- N. Wade (NYT)
- R. Harris (NPR)
- J. Rovner (NPR)
- D. Vergano (USAT)
- R. Stein (WPost)
- S. Vedantum (WPost)
- E. Rosenthal(NYT)
- G. Kolata (NYT)
- J. Palca (NPR)
- C. Dean (NYT)
- A. Pollack (NYT)
- A. Aubrey (NPR)
- W. Broad (NYT)
- J. Tierney (NYT)
- S. Borenstein(AP)
- Yale Environment 360
- The Scientist
- Nature News
UK, Canada, & Australia
- BBC Science
- Guardian Science
- Guardian Environ
- Times UK Science
- CP: Science
- Globe & Mail: Science
- Toronto Star: Science
- TheAustralian: Sci & Nature
- Australian Broadcasting Corporation: Science
News Wires
Social Media to Watch
- NYTimes Green Inc.
- Science Insider
- Scheufele's NanoPublic
- Fleck's InkStain
- Maynard's 2020 Science
- Pielke Jr.'s Blog
- Blum's Speakeasy Science
- AGU's Plain Spoken Scientist
- Breakthrough Institute
- Real Climate
- Die Klimazwiebel
- AJOB's Bioethics.net
- Yale Media & Climate Change
- CU CEJournal
- Olson's The Benshi
- Science and Entertainment Media Exchange
- P. Camil's Global Change
- Lehrer's Frontal Cortex
- M&K's The Intersection
- Times'UK Eureka Zone
- Pew's Climate Compass
- Center for Social Media's Blog
Podcasts on Science, Society, and Communication
- CFI's Point of Inquiry
- Grothe's For Good Reason
- CBC: How to Think About Science
- NPR Science Friday
- CBC: The Age of Persuasion
Research Centers: Science & Society
- Center for Climate Change Communication
- Yale Project on Climate Change
- Science Policy, Colorado
- Institute for Science & Society (UK)
- Belfer Center, Harvard
- Loka Institute
- Public Engagement, Wellcome
- CSPO @ AZState
- NYAS Science & Society
- Communication @ Cornell University
- LSC @ University of Wisconsin
- Science Communication Observatory @ Universitat Pompeu Fabra
- Observa: Science & Society
- People, Science, & Policy (UK)
- STS @ Harvard
- Cultural Cognition Project
Research Centers: Media, Politics, Society
- SoC @ American U.
- Center for Social Media
- Investigative Reporting Workshop
- Shorenstein Center, Harvard
- Annenberg Policy Center
- Frameworks Institute
- Demos UK
- Spitfire Strategies
- Public Agenda
- Pew Excellence in Journalism
- Pew People & Press
- Pew Internet & Public Life
- Pew Religion & Public Life
Media & Culture
- PBS' Current Mag
- Philip Kennicott
- Douglas Rushkoff
- Howard Kurtz's Media Notes
- WNYC On the Media
- B. Garfield @ Advertising Age
- CJR Daily
- Jay Rosen's Press Think
- Romenesko's Daily Fix
- Jarvis' Buzz Machine
- Campbell's Media Myths
« Even the Pope Needs an Image Consultant | Main | Huckabee: The Greatest Communicator Since Reagan »
What Causes People to Vote for a Radical-Right Party?
Category: Journal/Book Watch
Posted on: January 2, 2008 5:28 PM, by Matthew C. Nisbet
Find more posts in: 
Humanities & Social Science
Politics
Humanities & Social SciencePoliticsTrackBacks
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://scienceblogs.com/mt/pings/60154
Comments
Following a chain of related articles led to this:
http://apps.isiknowledge.com/CEL/CIW.cgi?SID=4DdoIAopJeN3KeHjHEN&Func=Abstract&doc=2/20
Abstract: This paper examines Ireland's 2004 Constitutional Amendment which removes birthright citizenship from any future Irish-born children of immigrant parents. I argue that for particular historical reasons, the ability of the state to convince its citizens of the necessity for this Amendment was remarkable and I suggest that it was able to do so by constructing citizenship as a moral regime and foreign-nationals and their foetuses as 'suspect patriots.'....
Posted by: Hank Roberts | January 2, 2008 6:55 PM
How perfectly apropos that this question should follow a post about Benedictus, the Hitlerjugende Panzerpapst...
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | January 2, 2008 7:06 PM
Hank Roberts,
Unfortunately, I could not access the article, but from the portion of the abstract I can appreciate its logic.
The referendum was accompanied by a wave of falsities circulated by press and politicians. The major story was that pregnant non-nationals were arriving just before term of their pregnancy, going straight from Dublin Airport to a maternity ward to have their babies, then leaving a week later confident thier children were now Irish (and EU) citizens.
The maternity wards were supposedly "swamped" by non-nationals making it difficult to cope with Irish women.
Even after these lies were denied by the masters of each maternity hospital (in a joint statement), somehow whenever the pro-side were at a loss for arguments, "maternity services" always crept back into the debate.
In the end the referendum was passed. Bad day for Ireland.
Posted by: toby | January 3, 2008 5:12 AM