Search

Despite the importance of authoritarian and nationalist values in military culture, we know little about the link between the military and the far right. In this article we argue that there is an ideological affinity between the military and far-right parties, strengthened by occupational socialization. Moreover, the presence of military institutions also helps mobilizing far-right support among the surrounding population. We test this argument using data from Spain. We show both that military personnel are substantially more likely than civilians to support the far right and that the location of military facilities in Spain is linked to higher far-right support. We also discuss the generalizability of the results and provide tentative evidence that a similar link is likely to be observed in countries where the armed forces have been historically focused on controlling internal dissent and where national sovereignty has been threatened by either internal or external challengers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Can nativist attitudes condition support for LGBT+ rights? The sustained advance in pro-LGBT+ attitudes in the West often contrasts with the greening of anti-immigrant sentiment propagated by nativist supply-side actors. We argue that these parallel trends are causally connected, theorizing that exposure to sexually conservative ethnic out-groups can provoke an instrumental increase in LGBT+ inclusion, particularly among those hostile toward immigration. Leveraging experiments in Britain and Spain, we provide causal evidence that citizens strategically liberalize their levels of support for LGBT+ rights when opponents of these measures are from the ethnic out-group. In a context where sexuality-based liberalism is nationalized, increasing tolerance toward LGBT+ citizens is driven by a desire among nativist citizens to socially disidentify from those out-groups perceived as inimical to these nationalized norms. Our analyses provide a critical interpretation of positive trends in LGBT+ tolerance with instrumental liberalism masking lower rates of genuine shifts in LGBT+ inclusion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study investigates the enduring presence of a sexuality gap in political behaviour within the unique context of Spain – an early-mover country in the expansion of LGBTQ+ rights. First, analysing supply-side dynamics, we demonstrate that political parties in Spain remain markedly polarised on LGBTQ+ rights. Second, utilising original survey data, we observe a more pronounced sexuality gap among younger generations: the youngest LGB voters demonstrate notably greater support for left-wing parties, particularly emergent progressive parties to the left of the social democrats than their older counterparts, while rejecting right-wing alternatives. These results underscore the enduring significance of sexual identity in shaping political behaviours, even in a nation celebrated for its strides in the advancement LGBTQ+ rights. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The use of gestational surrogacy as a means of family construction is on the rise, and several legislatures and governments across the globe are currently considering repealing prohibitions on the process. Little is known about the public's attitudes towards this means of conception used by both opposite-sex and same-sex couples. In this paper, I present original experimental evidence from Britain to demonstrate the prevalent role of homonegativity in shaping preferences for surrogacy. Empirically, I leverage a pre-registered experiment to model the independent and combined effects of homonegativity and parasocial (celebrity) contact on support for commercial gestational surrogacy. On average, citizens are largely supportive of the practice. Experimental manipulations, however, provide robust causal evidence that homonegative discrimination exhibits a sizeable negative effect on support for the policy, while exposure to celebrity reliance on surrogacy provides mixed effects. Isolating the underlying causal mechanisms via which treatment assignment shapes outcomes, quantitative text analysis of open-ended survey responses establishes that assignment to different treatment conditions actively influences survey respondents' explicit reasoning for their revealed preferences, providing additional purchase to causal interpretations of the experimental exposure [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An increasingly salient policy innovation pursued by LGBT+ rights groups and socially liberal policy entrepreneurs is the right of trans people to bring their legally recorded sex in line with their lived gender by way of self‐identification. In response to these moves toward trans inclusion, a unique coalition of trans‐exclusionary (gender critical) feminists and traditionalist conservatives has emerged to challenge these reforms. This coalition of policy opponents, mirroring historical issue frames that present homosexuals as predatory sexual deviants, campaign on a salient issue frame that presents transgender individuals and the expansion of trans rights as an inimical threat to the security, safety, and welfare of (cisgender) women, particularly in single‐sex spaces. In this paper, we address two questions. First, we ask: do trans‐exclusionary "protect women" issue frames over the alleged threat of trans persons to (cis) women shape mass public opinion? Second, we ask: in a relatively LGBT+ friendly policy environment, who supports the right to self‐identification for trans individuals? We answer these questions via an original pre‐registered survey experiment embedded within the 2021 Scottish Election Study. We find that trans‐exclusionary issue frames appealing to (cis) women's safety significantly depress support for trans rights, particularly among women respondents. Highlighting these concerns is an effective means of increasing already robust opposition to reforms designed to improve the welfare of transgender individuals, which should be of concern for proponents of self‐identification policies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Snap elections, those triggered by incumbents in advance of their original date in the electoral calendar, are a common feature of parliamentary democracies. In this paper, I ask: do snap elections influence citizens' trust in the government? Theoretically, I argue that providing citizens with an additional means of endorsing or rejecting the incumbent – giving voters a chance to 'have their say' – can be interpreted by citizens as normatively desirable and demonstrative of the incumbent's desire to legitimise their agenda by (re)‐invigorating their political mandate. Leveraging the quasi‐experimental setting provided by the coincidental timing of the UK Prime Minister, Theresa May's, shock announcement of early elections in April 2017 with the fieldwork for the Eurobarometer survey, I demonstrate that the announcement of snap elections had a sizeable and significant positive effect on political trust. This trust‐inducing effect is at odds with the observed electoral consequences of the 2017 snap elections. Whilst incumbent‐triggered elections can facilitate net gains for the sitting government, May's 2017 gamble cost the Conservative Party their majority. Snap elections did increase political trust. These trust‐inducing effects were not observed symmetrically for all citizens. Whilst Eurosceptics and voters on the right of the ideological spectrum – those most inclined to support the incumbent May‐led Conservative government in 2017 – became more trusting, no such changes in trust were observed amongst left‐wing or non‐Eurosceptic respondents. This study advances the understanding of a relatively understudied yet not uncommon political phenomenon, providing causal evidence that snap elections have implications for political trust. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While most voters in democratic countries still cast their ballot on election day, the proportion of the electorate which opts for postal voting has been steadily, and often dramatically, increasing. This transformation in electoral politics, however, is under-researched, particularly with regards to the motivations underlying the decision to cast a postal vote. In this article, we analyse the factors that drive an individual to vote by post rather than at the polling station. Using data from the 2019 British Election Study, we show, among other findings, that citizens for whom in-person voting would entail higher costs, such as the elderly and disabled, are more likely to opt for the convenience of postal voting. In addition, we find that partisans are unlikely to vote by post, suggesting that they derive greater expressive benefits from voting in a public setting. Finally, our analysis demonstrates that constituency marginality matters when it comes to opting for postal voting: citizens in more competitive constituencies are significantly more likely to ensure their votes by casting their ballots by post rather than on election day. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The mantra of 'take back control' has become a staple of eurosceptics across the European Union. At the centre of the slogan's message is a call to arms against the (perceived) challenge that EU membership represents for national sovereignty. In this paper, we theorize that supranational decisions taken by the European Court of Justice can increase 'polity scepticism' – increased opposition to the EU and decreased satisfaction with national democracy – by cueing citizens regarding the effects of EU integration on the perception of diluted sovereignty. Empirically, we leverage quasi-experimental evidence to support our theory, establishing that ECJ rulings have a significant causal effect on euroscepticism and dissatisfaction with democracy. The implications of our findings suggest that EU institutions seeking to ensure compliance with the rule of law and EU norms should proceed with caution. Interventionist action may backfire by increasing scrutiny of the EU's legitimacy and undermining polity support. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Mass emails are frequently used by advocacy groups to mobilise supporters to lobby legislators. But how effective are they at inducing constituent‐to‐legislator lobbying when the stakes are high? We test the efficacy of a large‐scale email campaign conducted by the UK's main anti‐Brexit organisation. In 2019, the group prominently displayed a 'Write to your MP' tool on their website and assigned 119,362 supporters represented by legislators with incongruent views to one of four email messages encouraging them to write to their MP or a control condition (no email). Messages varied across two factors: whether the MP's incongruent position was highlighted, and if urgency was emphasised. We find that 3.4 per cent of treatment subjects contacted their representative, compared to 0.1 per cent of those in the control, representing an additional 3,344 emails sent to MPs. We show that there was no substitution away from the most frequently used online legislator contact platform in the United Kingdom. While, on average, position and urgency cues had no marginal effects above the standard email, the most engaged supporters were more mobilised when informed that their MP held incongruent views. This study shows that advocacy groups can use low‐cost communication techniques to mobilise supporters to lobby representatives when the stakes are high. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Are lesbian, gay and bisexual voters in Western Europe europhile globalists or eurosceptic nativists? The recently established 'sexuality gap' between lavender voters and heterosexuals in Western Europe shows that LGBs are more likely to support left-leaning parties and identify ideologically with the left than their heterosexual peers. We know very little, however, about how this gap plays out in the multidimensional space in Europe where cultural concerns like immigration and EU integration are increasingly important. In this paper, I use cumulative data from the European Social Survey to investigate the impact of LGB status on support for EU integration and immigration. The results show, in line with theoretical expectations regarding the socializing effect of the LGB experience in encouraging support for social liberalism, that lavender voters in Western Europe are significantly more pro-integrationist and pro-immigration than comparable heterosexuals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]