This page goes deeper into the words introduced in Political Words: where they came from, how their meanings have changed, and where scholars agree and disagree. Choose any word below to go directly to it.
THE WORDS
Democracy
The word comes from the Greek demokratia, joining demos, “the people,” with kratos, “power” or “rule.” In ancient Athens, citizens gathered to debate and vote on laws themselves. That direct form survives today in referendums and citizen initiatives. Nearly every modern democracy, however, is representative: citizens elect officials and hold them accountable at the next election.
Robert Dahl argued that no real government fully lives up to the democratic ideal of equal responsiveness to every citizen. For the governments that come closest, he used the term polyarchy, meaning “rule by many.” He measured them along two lines: how openly people can compete for power, and how much of the adult population is allowed to take part.
Scholars disagree about how much the word should include. One camp keeps it narrow. Joseph Schumpeter defined democracy as a method, in which leaders win the power to decide by competing for the people’s votes. Adam Przeworski put it more plainly still: democracy is a system in which parties lose elections and hand over power peacefully. Other theorists, including David Held and Joshua Cohen, argue that elections alone are not enough. Without the conditions that let citizens take part effectively, such as adequate resources, civic education, and basic social conditions, the form of democracy can exist without the substance.
A separate debate concerns what happens before the vote. Some theorists see democracy mainly as a way of adding up what citizens already want. Others, notably Jürgen Habermas, argue that democratic decisions draw their legitimacy from the public reasoning and discussion that come before the ballot.
Modern constitutional democracies address the danger of unchecked majority power with bills of rights, judicial review, and a separation of powers. These are features of the constitutional kind of democracy, not part of the bare definition of the word.
In public argument, calling something democratic signals legitimacy and fairness: the people have spoken. Calling something “a threat to democracy” signals that an action undermines elections, voting rights, or constitutional checks. The word drifts from its meaning when it becomes a stand-in for outcomes a speaker prefers. Under the standard definitions, a result reached through lawful, competitive voting is democratic whether or not a particular observer likes it.
Republic
The word comes from the Latin res publica, “the public thing” or “public affair.” Standard reference works today apply a simple test: a republic is a state whose head of state is not a hereditary monarch, whether the office is filled by popular election, by a parliament, or by less democratic means.
An older tradition asks much more of the word. The Roman statesman Cicero, the Renaissance writer Niccolò Machiavelli in his Discourses on Livy, and the English poet John Milton all belong to what is called classical republicanism. In that tradition, government must serve the common good rather than a ruler’s private interest. It relies on the rule of law, on a mixed government that balances different parts of society, and on citizens who take an active part in public life.
In recent decades, Quentin Skinner and Philip Pettit revived that tradition with a particular idea of freedom, which they call non-domination. On this view, being free means more than being left alone. It means not living at the mercy of someone else’s arbitrary power, even the power of someone who happens to choose not to interfere.
That leads to a real disagreement. Reference works classify every state without a monarch as a republic. Pettit, Skinner, and others in the civic-republican tradition argue that a state without a king still falls short of republican principles if its public institutions are captured by private interests, unchecked executives, or dominating factions.
American usage has its own history. In Federalist No. 10, written in 1787, James Madison explained what he meant by the term: “A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect.” He named two differences from a democracy: “first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended.” In Federalist No. 39, he offered a definition: a government “which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure, for a limited period, or during good behavior.”
Madison used “democracy” narrowly, to mean citizens governing directly in assembly. Robert Dahl later argued that what Madison called a republic corresponds to what political scientists now call representative democracy.
In public argument, invoking the word “republic” signals adherence to constitutional limits, protection of minority rights against majorities, and the rule of law. The word drifts from its meaning when it is used to argue that voting or majority opinion carries no rightful authority. In constitutional republics founded on popular sovereignty, representative institutions draw their legitimacy from the consent of the governed, working through constitutional procedures.
Authoritarianism
The word traces back to the Latin auctoritas, meaning influence, authority, or command. Its modern political use emerged in the early-to-mid twentieth century to describe non-democratic governments that demand obedience at the expense of personal and political liberties.
The standard framework comes from Juan Linz, who developed it through his study of Franco’s Spain in the 1960s and 1970s. Linz identified four characteristics. Political pluralism is limited: parties and organized opposition are tightly restricted, though some independent life outside politics may be tolerated. There is no elaborate guiding ideology. Instead, the government relies on broad appeals to things like patriotism, order, economic progress, or traditional values. Mass political mobilization is absent, since the government prefers a public that stays out of politics. And a leader or small group exercises power within limits that are formally ill-defined, yet in practice fairly predictable. Linz’s model remains the classic reference point, though later scholars have adapted it as authoritarian governments have changed.
Authoritarian governments can keep the outward forms of law, with constitutions, courts, and legal codes. The distinction scholars draw is between the rule of law, where laws bind those in power, and rule by law, where law serves as an instrument of those in power rather than a limit on them.
Scholars disagree about where authoritarianism ends. Steven Levitsky and Lucan Way described what they call competitive authoritarian regimes, which emerged after the Cold War. These governments hold regular elections and allow real opposition parties, but those in power bend the rules enough to make the competition unfair. Scholars debate whether such hybrid systems are damaged democracies or durable forms of authoritarianism.
A second debate concerns whether prosperity undermines authoritarian rule. Seymour Martin Lipset argued in 1959 that economic development and a growing middle class create pressures that favor democracy. Later scholars, including Larry Diamond, have pointed instead to authoritarian resilience: governments that manage economic growth through state-guided capitalism and patronage networks while keeping politics closed.
Saudi Arabia illustrates the modern form. Freedom House rates it “Not Free,” with minimal scores for political rights, and the V-Dem Institute classifies it as a closed autocracy.
In public argument, calling something authoritarian signals heavy-handed governance, unilateral executive action, disregard for established norms, or the suppression of dissent. The label can be applied to individual policies, emergency orders, or enforcement decisions within functioning constitutional systems. In political science, however, authoritarianism classifies an entire system of government, one defined by structural restrictions on political competition, rather than particular controversial actions by lawfully constituted authorities.
Totalitarianism
The word began as criticism. In 1923, the Italian journalist and anti-fascist politician Giovanni Amendola coined totalitario to describe the Fascist Party’s drive to dominate public life. Mussolini and Fascist theorists then adopted the term with pride, to describe their ambition for an all-inclusive state. They expressed that ambition in the formulation “Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State,” which later appeared in The Doctrine of Fascism (1932).
In 1956, Carl Friedrich and Zbigniew Brzezinski set out the classic list of six features: an elaborate official ideology covering all of human existence and pointing toward an ideal future; a single mass party, usually led by one dictator; a secret police using surveillance and terror against wide sections of society, not just identified enemies; near-total control of mass communication; control of all armed forces; and central direction of the economy.
Hannah Arendt, in The Origins of Totalitarianism (1951), argued that totalitarianism was something new rather than simply a harsher dictatorship. In her account, it combined an all-explaining ideology with arbitrary, systematic terror to destroy independent social life and leave individuals isolated and powerless.
Scholars continue to debate the concept. Historians such as Sheila Fitzpatrick argued that the classic model overstated how much control the Soviet state actually exercised over everyday life, documenting informal networks, local bargaining, and quiet resistance. That debate raises the question of whether totalitarianism describes regimes as they actually were, or an extreme they aimed for but never fully achieved.
Fascist Italy, where the word began, is itself disputed. Juan Linz and Hannah Arendt argued that the continuing influence of the monarchy, the Catholic Church, and the traditional military kept Mussolini’s regime from achieving total party dominance, making it an authoritarian regime with totalitarian ambitions. Emilio Gentile argues the opposite: that Fascist Italy pioneered totalitarian methods through political ritual, party penetration of society, and mass mobilization.
North Korea provides a contemporary example. United Nations reports and Human Rights Watch document pervasive surveillance, mandatory state ideological indoctrination, severe restrictions on movement and speech, political prison camps, and sweeping state control over communication, public life, and the economy.
In public argument, calling something totalitarian signals suffocating control, pervasive surveillance, ideological intolerance, or the denial of individual autonomy. The label can be applied to regulations, surveillance practices, or institutional policies. In political theory, totalitarianism describes an entire system: a single-party monopoly, an all-encompassing official ideology, and systematic state terror designed to erase the boundary between public power and private life.
Monarchy
The word comes from the Greek monarkhia, joining monos, “single,” with arkhein, “to rule.” A monarchy is a system in which headship of the state belongs to one individual, the monarch. The position is usually hereditary and usually held for life or until abdication, but not always. In elective monarchies, the monarch is chosen by a council or electoral body, as with the historical Holy Roman Empire, the papacy, and Malaysia today.
Monarchies vary widely. In an absolute monarchy, political authority is concentrated in the monarch, without effective constitutional checks. The French thinker Jean Bodin set out an influential theory of that kind of sovereign power in 1576. In a constitutional monarchy, the monarch is head of state but bound by a constitution, while governing authority rests with an elected parliament and a cabinet answerable to it. Walter Bagehot described that arrangement in Britain in The English Constitution (1867).
Oman today shows the concentrated form. It has a Council of Ministers, courts, and a council with an elected chamber, but ultimate authority rests with the hereditary Sultan, who serves as head of state, head of government, and supreme commander of the armed forces. There are no legal political parties and no competitive elections for executive office. Norway shows the constitutional form. Its king is head of state under the 1814 Constitution, while governing authority rests with the elected parliament, the Storting, and the cabinet. Norway ranks among the highest-scoring democracies in international indices.
Monarchy’s place in a democracy is debated. Bagehot and, more recently, Vernon Bogdanor argued that a nonpartisan hereditary head of state provides stability, keeping the ceremonial role of representing the nation separate from party competition. Thomas Paine, in Common Sense (1776), argued the opposite: hereditary office contradicts political equality by assigning public position by birth.
In public argument, calling something monarchical signals unilateral executive action, nepotism, dynastic ambitions, or disregard for legislative and judicial limits. The word departs from its definition when applied to assertive executive power within a constitutional system. A monarchy is a specific structure, in which headship of state is inherited or conferred through a monarchical election, not authority won in a competitive public election.
Back to Monarchy, Theocracy, and Oligarchy
Theocracy
The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus coined the word theokratia, from theos, “god,” and kratos, “rule,” late in the first century, to describe the ancient Jewish commonwealth governed under divine law. Today the word covers several related arrangements: government that claims direct divine authority, government by clergy, or a legal system in which civil law is subordinate to and derived from religious law. These are alternative or overlapping forms; a state need not have all three to be a theocracy.
A theocracy is different from a state with an official church. The United Kingdom has an established church, the Church of England, but its laws are made by Parliament and its political authority is secular. Nor does a country become a theocracy because lawmakers draw on religious or moral convictions. In a theocracy, ultimate political authority is grounded in claimed divine or religious authority, which may be exercised through clergy, religious institutions, religious law, or a combination of them. In a constitutional state, laws are passed by elected assemblies through secular procedures.
Max Weber drew a more specialized distinction. He separated forms in which religious authority dominates political rule from what he called hierocracy: an organized religious authority that enforces its order by granting or withholding religious benefits. His terminology is narrower than the way “theocracy” is generally used today. Scholars also debate how to classify particular states. Iran since its 1979 revolution is the leading case. Said Amir Arjomand describes it as a clerical theocracy built on the principle of guardianship by an Islamic jurist. Daniel Brumberg describes it as a hybrid, combining theocratic oversight bodies with elected institutions.
Vatican City is a contemporary example. Under its current Fundamental Law, the Pope holds supreme sovereign authority as head of state, with legislative, executive, and judicial functions exercised through the institutions established by that law. Iran shows the hybrid form. Under its 1979 Constitution, supreme authority rests with the clerical Supreme Leader and the Guardian Council, which reviews legislation for conformity with Islamic law and screens candidates for office, alongside an elected president and parliament.
In public argument, calling something theocratic signals the influence of religious authorities, policies seen as enforcing religious doctrine, or restrictions on personal liberty on religious grounds. The label can be applied to laws, court rulings, or candidates in pluralist systems whose positions align with religious ethics. In political science, however, a theocracy is a system in which religious institutions hold sovereign political control, claimed divine authority overrides civil legitimacy, or religious law replaces civil law. It is not a pluralist system in which elected legislatures pass laws subject to judicial review.
Back to Monarchy, Theocracy, and Oligarchy
Oligarchy
The word comes from the Greek oligarkhia, joining oligos, “few,” with arkhein, “to rule.” Aristotle, in his Politics, defined oligarchy less by numbers than by class: rule by the wealthy for their own benefit. He contrasted it with aristocracy, rule by the virtuous few for the common good.
Modern scholars use the word in two ways. The broader, standard usage describes any arrangement in which effective power is concentrated in a small, cohesive elite, whether that elite is defined by family, military rank, party position, corporate power, or wealth. Jeffrey Winters defines it more narrowly, around wealth itself: an oligarch commands enough wealth to deploy it in defense of that wealth, and oligarchy is the politics of that defense.
Because oligarchy describes how power works in practice rather than a formal type of constitution, a country can be a democracy or a republic on paper and still contain oligarchic concentrations of power. Under the broader usage, an oligarchy need not be rich. A ruling party committee, such as the Soviet Politburo, or a military junta can form an oligarchy based on position rather than private fortune.
A long-running debate asks whether rule by the few is inevitable. In 1911, Robert Michels proposed his “iron law of oligarchy”: every complex organization, including democratic parties, eventually concentrates power in a small leadership. Robert Dahl, studying power in an American city in 1961, argued instead that power in modern democracies is dispersed among shifting, competing groups.
The Republic of Venice is a historical example, and a reminder that a republic can be an oligarchy. From 1297 until 1797, political authority there was restricted to a closed, hereditary class of patrician merchant families recorded in the Golden Book. Russia in the 1990s is a more recent example. After rapid privatization, a small group of business magnates gained control of key natural-resource and financial sectors and used that wealth to influence appointments, elections, and policy.
In public argument, calling something an oligarchy signals political inequality, the outsized influence of wealth on policy, or the capture of public institutions by narrow interests. The word departs from its definitions when used to suggest that any wealthy group or successful lobbying effort amounts to oligarchy. In political science, it refers to a systemic concentration of power: either control by a small elite without effective public accountability, or, in Winters’s account, the capacity of extreme wealth to secure itself regardless of democratic procedures.
Back to Monarchy, Theocracy, and Oligarchy
Capitalism
The word traces back to the Latin caput, “head,” through the medieval capitale, meaning movable wealth or the principal of a loan. The noun “capitalist,” meaning an owner of capital, appears in Arthur Young’s Travels in France (1792). “Capitalism” came later. Louis Blanc used it in the 1850 edition of Organisation du travail to mean the appropriation of capital by some to the exclusion of others, and William Makepeace Thackeray used it in English in his novel The Newcomes (1854). Karl Marx wrote at length about the “capitalist mode of production” in Das Kapital (1867) but rarely used the noun itself. The word entered academic social science largely through Werner Sombart’s Der moderne Kapitalismus (1902). Defenders of the system historically preferred other names: Adam Smith’s “system of natural liberty,” “commercial society,” “free enterprise,” or “the market economy.”
Standard references define capitalism by four features: private ownership of the means of production, distribution, and finance; allocation mainly through market prices rather than central direction; production aimed at profit and the accumulation of capital; and wage labor. Theorists differ over which feature is fundamental: voluntary exchange in markets, or the relationship between owners and wage earners.
Peter Hall and David Soskice, in Varieties of Capitalism (2001), distinguished two broad types. Liberal market economies, such as the United States and the United Kingdom, coordinate mainly through competitive markets and stock-market financing. Coordinated market economies, such as Germany and Japan, rely more on employer associations, works councils, and industry-wide bargaining. Germany’s codetermination law, for example, places worker representatives on company supervisory boards.
The great debates about capitalism run through several classic works. Adam Smith, in The Wealth of Nations (1776), argued that competition and the division of labor channel private self-interest toward the public good, without anyone intending it. Friedrich Hayek, in “The Use of Knowledge in Society” (1945), argued that market prices gather scattered local knowledge in a way no central planner could replicate. Karl Marx argued that capitalism rests on extracting surplus value from wage labor, producing recurring crises and concentrations of wealth. John Maynard Keynes, in The General Theory (1936), argued that market economies cannot be relied on to correct themselves into full employment, and that governments should actively manage demand. Milton Friedman, in Capitalism and Freedom (1962), argued that competitive capitalism coordinates economic life efficiently and supports political liberty by keeping economic power out of the state’s hands.
In public argument, calling something capitalist can signal corporate greed, the treatment of public necessities as commodities, inequality, or neglect of social and environmental welfare, as in the phrase “late-stage capitalism.” The word departs from its definition when used as an epithet for any commercial activity, profit-seeking, or corporate misconduct. In economic analysis, capitalism describes an institutional system of private property, market prices, and wage relations, not particular ethical failures.
Socialism
The word comes from the Latin socialis, meaning “allied” or “associated.” It emerged in Britain and France in the 1820s and 1830s, in writings connected with Robert Owen, Henri de Saint-Simon, and Charles Fourier, who contrasted cooperative social organization with competitive individualism. In The Communist Manifesto (1848), Marx and Engels used “socialism” and “communism” largely interchangeably. Later, in The State and Revolution (1917), Lenin defined socialism as the first phase of communist society, following the overthrow of capitalism and preceding full communism.
Pablo Gilabert and Martin O’Neill, surveying the tradition in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, identify its minimal common core as social ownership or democratic control of the major means of production. Beyond that core, three broad models emerged. In state ownership with central planning, the state holds productive assets on society’s behalf and directs the economy through planning agencies. In market socialism, proposed by Oskar Lange in the 1930s and Alec Nove in The Economics of Feasible Socialism (1983), publicly or cooperatively owned enterprises compete in markets. In worker self-management, associated with G. D. H. Cole’s guild socialism, workers run their own enterprises directly through councils or cooperatives.
Two debates shaped the tradition. The first is the socialist calculation debate. Ludwig von Mises argued in 1920 that without private ownership there can be no competitive markets for capital goods, and without such markets no prices to show what is scarce, making rational planning impossible. Oskar Lange answered in 1936 that a planning board could set accounting prices and adjust them as surpluses or shortages appeared. The second debate is about state ownership itself. Cole and the council communist Anton Pannekoek argued that state ownership without workers’ control simply replaces private managers with state bureaucrats, a system critics called “state capitalism.” Lenin and Nikolai Bukharin held that the socialist state is society’s rightful custodian of its productive assets, directing production through central planning.
The Soviet Union after Stalin illustrates the state model. Industry, land, and natural resources belonged to the state, and the economy was directed by planning agencies such as Gosplan through production quotas and official prices. The Mondragon Corporation in Spain’s Basque Country, founded in 1956, illustrates cooperative ownership within a market economy: its worker-members own the enterprises, vote on management, and set internal pay, while competing in international markets without outside shareholders.
In public argument, calling something socialist can signal state overreach, the confiscation of private wealth, government control over personal choices, or economic inefficiency. The word departs from its definition when applied to ordinary regulations, tax changes, or welfare programs within capitalist economies. In political economy, socialism describes an economy built on social or democratic ownership of productive capital, not fiscal policy within a private-enterprise system.
Communism
The word comes from the Latin communis, “shared” or “common.” Its modern political use took shape among revolutionary societies in 1840s Paris, including Étienne Cabet’s Icarians and the League of the Just. Marx and Engels developed the idea in The Communist Manifesto (1848) and later in Marx’s Critique of the Gotha Programme (1875).
In the Critique, Marx described two phases. In the lower phase, which later Marxist-Leninist usage called socialism, workers would receive back from society in proportion to the labor they contributed, after deductions for common funds, through certificates recording the amount of labor contributed. In the higher phase, once scarcity and the rigid division of labor were overcome, society would follow the principle “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!” Later commentators describe this end state as classless, stateless, and moneyless. Scholars agree that it was never realized.
After the 1917 Russian Revolution, “communism” came to mean the regimes established by ruling Marxist-Leninist parties. The economist János Kornai, in The Socialist System (1992), analyzed the classic communist economy as a coherent system with four defining features: a single ruling party holding undivided power; dominant state ownership; bureaucratic command instead of market prices; and “soft budget constraints,” meaning the state rescues failing enterprises. Combined with fixed prices and central allocation of materials, these features produced chronic shortages. The ruling parties never claimed to have achieved communism. They described their systems as “realized socialism” or “the primary stage of socialism,” with communism as the ultimate goal.
Scholars disagree about how to classify communist-party states that now rely heavily on private enterprise and markets, notably China and Vietnam. Branko Milanovic, in Capitalism, Alone (2019), calls China an example of “political capitalism”: private production and markets, run by an unelected bureaucracy operating above the law. Yasheng Huang, in Capitalism with Chinese Characteristics (2008), similarly analyzes it as state-led capitalism. China’s official doctrine calls the system a “socialist market economy,” pointing to the state’s control of major banks, strategic industries, infrastructure, and land.
A second debate concerns why communist states were so repressive. Leszek Kołakowski, in Main Currents of Marxism, argued that the repression grew directly out of Marxist ideas: the rejection of political pluralism and the claim to possess the truth about history. Other historians have disputed the claim that Stalinist repression followed inevitably from Marxist theory, emphasizing the effects of Russia’s political traditions, economic conditions, civil war, international isolation, and the choices made by Soviet leaders. Among them, Stephen F. Cohen, in Bukharin and the Bolshevik Revolution (1973), argued that Stalinism was not the only possible outcome of the revolution.
In public argument, calling something communist can signal total state domination, the abolition of private property, totalitarian surveillance, and violent repression. The word departs from its definition when aimed at progressive taxation, social insurance, or regulation within market economies. In political analysis, it describes either Marx’s theoretical stateless society or a regime ruled by a Marxist-Leninist party through centralized command.
Social Democracy and Democratic Socialism
Both terms grew out of the nineteenth-century European socialist movement, where they were used interchangeably. Germany’s main labor party was founded in 1875 as the Socialist Workers’ Party of Germany, through a merger that included the Social Democratic Workers’ Party, and it took the name Social Democratic Party of Germany in 1890.
Two turning points separated the terms. After the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution, the socialist movement split between revolutionary communism, organized in the Third International, and democratic, reformist socialism, which committed itself to parliamentary democracy. Then, in the mid-twentieth century, Western European social democratic parties gradually changed their goals. In its Bad Godesberg Program of 1959, the German Social Democratic Party moved away from general nationalization and accepted private ownership and competitive markets, while retaining public regulation and planning where it considered them necessary. The program summed this up in the principle “As much competition as possible, as much planning as necessary.”
Sheri Berman, in The Primacy of Politics (2006), argues that social democracy developed as a distinct ideology asserting that democratic politics should take priority over both unchecked markets and orthodox Marxist ideas about economic inevitability. Democratic socialists hold that private ownership of capital produces built-in exploitation and inequality, and that political democracy is incomplete without economic democracy: social, public, or cooperative ownership of major enterprises, and worker control of production. They reject the one-party rule and repression of communist states, and insist that any transition must come through competitive elections with civil liberties intact.
A welfare state alone doesn’t make a country social democratic. Welfare programs exist under Christian democratic, conservative, and liberal governments as well. What distinguishes social democracy is the combination of universal social rights, strong union coordination, and active market regulation.
Scholars disagree about how to classify the Nordic countries. Gøsta Esping-Andersen, in The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism (1990), classified Denmark, Norway, and Sweden as social democratic welfare states, marked by universal social rights and a high degree of “de-commodification,” meaning how far people can maintain a livelihood without depending on the job market. Jonas Pontusson, in Inequality and Prosperity (2005), emphasizes that these economies rest on private ownership, open trade, and market pricing, and treats them as capitalist market economies with strong redistributive institutions, not as socialist systems.
A second debate asks whether the mixed economy is a destination or a way station. The democratic socialist Michael Harrington, in Socialism: Past and Future (1989), saw welfare-state reforms as an early phase in a longer transition toward democratic control of capital. The British social democrat Anthony Crosland, in The Future of Socialism (1956), argued that capitalism had already been transformed by regulation, managerial change, and labor’s power, and that a mixed economy with strong welfare protections and progressive taxation could achieve social equality without public ownership of all capital.
Sweden’s postwar economy, shaped by the Rehn-Meidner model, illustrates social democracy within a capitalist framework: private ownership of most industry, open global trade, centralized wage bargaining between employers and unions, and universal tax-funded social protections. Chile under Salvador Allende, from 1970 to 1973, illustrates an attempt at democratic socialism. His Popular Unity government pursued a “democratic road to socialism,” seeking to move from private ownership toward state, municipal, and worker-owned property through legislation and constitutional procedures. His government’s adherence to those constitutional limits became fiercely disputed: the opposition-controlled Chamber of Deputies accused the government of violating the constitutional order, and serious conflicts developed with the judiciary over the separation of powers.
In public argument, both terms can signal universal public services and reduced poverty, or, from the other direction, economic stagnation, confiscatory taxation, and government overreach. They depart from their definitions when applied to ordinary tax changes, infrastructure spending, or public programs. In political economy, social democracy describes a model that keeps private ownership while providing universal social benefits. Democratic socialism describes a commitment to democratizing the ownership of productive capital itself, through constitutional means.
Back to Social Democracy and Democratic Socialism
Liberalism
The word comes from the Latin liberalis, “befitting a free person,” from liber, “free.” Its political use began with the liberales in Spain’s Cortes of Cádiz in 1812, who defended constitutional limits on the monarchy. From there it spread across Europe and Britain to describe supporters of constitutional government, representative assemblies, religious toleration, and individual legal rights against absolute monarchy and clerical authority.
Gerald Gaus, Shane Courtland, and David Schmidtz, surveying the tradition in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, identify three core commitments: a presumption in favor of liberty, so that limits on freedom need justification; equal moral and legal standing for every individual; and the principle that coercive political power must be justifiable to those subject to it. These commitments form a broad common core, though liberals disagree about how to interpret and rank them.
Classical liberalism is associated with John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government (1689), Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations (1776), and later Friedrich Hayek’s The Constitution of Liberty (1960). It centers on what Isaiah Berlin, in “Two Concepts of Liberty” (1958), called negative liberty: freedom as the absence of coercion or restraint by others. It emphasizes private property, voluntary contract, markets, and the rule of law, within strict constitutional limits on government. Classical liberals still assigned the state substantial duties. Smith supported national defense, the administration of justice, public works, and public education, and Hayek accepted a basic safety net.
Modern, or social, liberalism emerged in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries with T. H. Green’s Lectures on the Principles of Political Obligation (1886) and L. T. Hobhouse’s Liberalism (1911), and was developed further by John Rawls in A Theory of Justice (1971). It emphasizes positive liberty: the effective capacity and social conditions that let people direct their own lives. Modern liberals argue that unregulated markets and severe inequality can create dependence that restricts freedom, which justifies public education, social insurance, economic regulation, and progressive taxation.
Two debates run through the tradition. Berlin warned that defining liberty positively, as self-realization or collective self-direction, risks justifying coercion in freedom’s name. Charles Taylor, in “What’s Wrong with Negative Liberty” (1979), answered that negative liberty is incomplete, because internal constraints, unequal power, and deprivation also limit self-determination. Rawls argued that economic inequalities are just only if they work to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged. Hayek, in the second volume of Law, Legislation and Liberty (1976), argued that “social justice” has no meaning in a market order, and that attempts to impose planned distributions erode the rule of law.
Two confusions follow from the split between branches. Classical liberalism is not the same as libertarianism: classical liberals accepted public roles that strict libertarian theory rejects. Modern liberalism is not socialism: modern liberals keep private enterprise, markets, and property rights, using public institutions to correct market failures and widen opportunity rather than to take ownership of the means of production.
In public argument, calling someone liberal can signal permissiveness, excessive spending, bureaucratic overreach, or cultural elitism, or, from the other direction, tolerance, open inquiry, protection of minority rights, and reform. The word departs from its definition when used as an all-purpose tag for any left-of-center initiative or cultural trend. In political philosophy, liberalism describes a framework of individual rights, legal equality, and constitutional limits on power, not an endorsement of expanding government or of any particular program.
Conservatism
The word comes from the Latin conservare, “to preserve” or “to guard.” Its political use began in Restoration France, when François-René de Chateaubriand founded his journal Le Conservateur in 1818 to defend constitutional monarchy against revolutionary radicalism. In Britain, John Wilson Croker introduced the term in The Quarterly Review in 1830 as a new name for the Tory party. Edmund Burke never used the noun “conservatism,” but his Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790) supplied the arguments that later writers built into the conservative tradition.
Andy Hamilton, surveying the tradition in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, identifies three characteristic commitments: skepticism toward abstract plans for reorganizing complex societies; deference to inherited institutions, customs, and legal practices as stores of accumulated experience; and a preference for gradual, prudent reform that avoids unintended consequences.
Scholars disagree about what kind of thing conservatism is. Michael Oakeshott, in “On Being Conservative” (1956), described it as a practical disposition rather than an ideology, a preference, in his words, “for the familiar to the unknown.” Samuel Huntington, in “Conservatism as an Ideology” (1957), argued that it is a positional ideology, one that arises whenever established institutions face fundamental challenge. Roger Scruton, in The Meaning of Conservatism (1980), argued that it is a substantive philosophy rooted in inherited obligations and allegiances that come before individual choice.
Several distinct traditions developed. Burkean conservatism values civil society, which Burke called “the little platoon,” and historical continuity, describing society as a partnership “between those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are to be born.” One-nation conservatism, associated with Benjamin Disraeli and his novel Sybil (1845), holds that governing institutions have an obligation to relieve social distress and prevent a society from splitting into separate nations of rich and poor. Fusionism, developed in the United States by Frank Meyer in In Defense of Freedom (1962), combines the traditional conservative concern for moral order with classical liberal commitments to free markets and limited government.
That last point leads to a continuing disagreement within conservatism over the role of the state. Market-oriented conservatives, such as Frank Meyer, argue for sharply limited government, private property, and free markets, while maintaining that freedom operates within an inherited moral and social order. Paternalist and traditionalist conservatives, such as Roger Scruton, allow a broader role for the state in sustaining civic culture, social institutions, and moral order. Both care about moral order; they differ over whether the state should actively sustain it.
Burke’s own status is also debated. Standard surveys treat him as the founding theorist of modern conservatism. The historian Emily Jones, in Edmund Burke and the Invention of Modern Conservatism (2017), argues that he was an eighteenth-century Whig reformer whose writings were assembled into a unified conservative ideology by later British commentators.
Conservatism is distinct from reaction. Reaction seeks to restore an earlier social or political order, sometimes through radical or disruptive methods. Conservative thinkers from Burke onward have emphasized adaptation and prudent reform.
In public argument, calling something conservative can signal resistance to progress, defense of privilege, social control, or indifference to modern problems, or, from the other direction, fiscal responsibility, personal accountability, respect for heritage, and prudence. The word departs from its definition when applied to radical efforts to dismantle established constitutional arrangements or uproot civil institutions. In political thought, conservatism describes a commitment to institutional continuity, prudence, and gradual adaptation, not programmatic radicalism or reaction.
Progressivism
The word comes from the Latin progressus, “an advance.” The broader idea of progress gained prominence during the Enlightenment, notably with the Marquis de Condorcet, who held that societies advance toward greater knowledge, freedom, and well-being through reason and reform. As a political label, “progressivism” became prominent in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, especially in the United States, where reform coalitions responded to rapid industrialization, the growth of corporate trusts, and political corruption.
Historians and political theorists such as Daniel T. Rodgers, in Atlantic Crossings (1998), and Eldon Eisenach, in The Lost Promise of Progressivism (1994), describe progressivism as an evolving family of reform movements with three core commitments: that society can deliberately guide its own development through purposeful institutional action; that markets cannot be assumed to produce fair or safe outcomes, so democratic government has a legitimate duty to regulate concentrated economic power, protect workers, and address poverty; and that political institutions should be reformed to answer to public needs rather than private interests. Rodgers’s work also shows that progressive reform ideas developed internationally, through exchanges across European and American social politics, rather than in America alone.
The American Progressive Era, roughly 1890 to 1920, produced both regulatory expansion, such as the Federal Trade Commission, state-level child labor reforms, and federal attempts to regulate child labor, and democratic reforms, including the direct primary, the initiative and referendum, and the direct election of senators. A hallmark of the era was confidence in expertise: scientific management, empirical social research, and nonpartisan commissions meant to free government from party machines. That same confidence in “scientific” administration had another side. The economic historian Thomas C. Leonard, in Illiberal Reformers (2016), documents that prominent reformers of the era endorsed eugenics, immigration restriction, and racial segregation, viewing them as scientifically grounded policy.
Scholars disagree about whether progressivism was ever one movement. Robert Wiebe, in The Search for Order (1967), argued that it was a coherent modernizing project led by a rising professional middle class seeking administrative order. Peter Filene, in “An Obituary for ‘The Progressive Movement’” (1970), argued that reformers’ goals were so varied and contradictory that “the progressive movement” is an abstraction without unified ideological content.
A second debate, inside progressivism itself, concerned the role of ordinary citizens. John Dewey, in The Public and Its Problems (1927), argued that reform depends on active participatory democracy, public education, and experimental inquiry involving all citizens. Walter Lippmann, in The Phantom Public (1925), doubted that ordinary voters could direct policy in a complex modern society, and argued that governance must be informed by experts and specialized analysis.
In public argument, calling something progressive can signal technocratic paternalism, intrusive regulation, moralizing social engineering, or cultural elitism, or, from the other direction, moral progress, institutional reform, environmental stewardship, and resistance to monopoly. The word departs from its definition when applied to any proposal for change or used interchangeably with general left-wing rhetoric. In political science, progressivism describes a reform framework that uses democratic authority to correct specific social and economic dislocations.
Libertarianism
The word has an unexpected history. The French anarchist Joseph Déjacque coined libertaire in 1857, in a letter to Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, to describe an anti-authoritarian socialist position. For decades afterward, “libertarian” referred mainly to anti-state socialists and anarchists. In the mid-twentieth century, American writers such as Leonard Read and Murray Rothbard adopted the word for a philosophy of private property, free markets, and radical limits on the state.
Peter Vallentyne and Bas van der Vossen, surveying the tradition in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, identify its core as self-ownership, meaning each person’s strong moral authority over his or her own person and body; strict moral limits on coercion, which is permitted only in self-defense, protection of rights, or enforcement of voluntary agreements; voluntary association and exchange as the basis of social life; and unusually demanding standards for justifying state power. Libertarians divide over whether natural resources can be privately owned without compensating others, and over whether any state can be legitimate.
Those divisions produce two main branches. Right-libertarians, such as Robert Nozick in Anarchy, State, and Utopia (1974) and Murray Rothbard in For a New Liberty (1973), combine self-ownership with strong rights to acquire unowned land and resources, subject to limits such as the Lockean proviso, and regard state redistribution of wealth as a violation of self-ownership. Left-libertarians, such as Hillel Steiner in An Essay on Rights (1994) and Peter Vallentyne, accept full self-ownership but hold that the earth’s natural resources belong to everyone equally. Those who claim scarce resources therefore owe compensation to others, which can justify resource dividends or egalitarian redistribution.
Libertarians also disagree about why liberty matters. Nozick argued that individual rights operate as “side constraints” and cannot simply be overridden in order to maximize collective welfare. Richard Epstein and David Friedman defend libertarian property rules and markets on consequentialist grounds, arguing that they produce the greatest prosperity and social coordination. And they disagree about the state itself. Minarchists such as Nozick argue that a minimal “night-watchman” state, limited to defense, police, and courts, can arise legitimately. Anarcho-capitalists such as Rothbard argue that any state claiming a monopoly on force and collecting compulsory taxes is illegitimate, and that security and legal arbitration could be provided through voluntary markets.
Libertarianism differs from classical liberalism, whose thinkers accepted public infrastructure and, in some cases, social safety nets; natural-rights libertarians in Nozick’s tradition reject compulsory redistribution on principle. It is also more than free-market economics: personal autonomy, free expression, and freedom from state surveillance are central to the philosophy, and a strand of the tradition favors non-intervention in foreign affairs.
In public argument, calling something libertarian can signal social atomism, indifference to the vulnerable, hostility to public institutions, or reckless deregulation, or, from the other direction, principled defense of individual autonomy, civil liberties, and resistance to surveillance and taxation. The word departs from its definition when used to describe corporate subsidies, state-granted monopolies, or protectionist policies, which libertarian philosophy opposes.
A note on anarchism
Andrew Fiala, surveying the tradition in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, describes anarchism as a broad family of philosophies marked by deep skepticism toward coercive authority and hierarchy. Classical anarchism aims at abolishing the state. The broader tradition also includes philosophical anarchism, which holds that no state has a legitimate right to command obedience while tolerating existing states on practical grounds. Anarchism is not a doctrine of chaos or violence. Anarchists argue that social life can be organized through voluntary, non-coercive cooperation.
Two main traditions developed. Social anarchism, associated with Pierre-Joseph Proudhon’s What Is Property? (1840), Mikhail Bakunin’s Statism and Anarchy (1873), and Peter Kropotkin’s The Conquest of Bread (1892), links opposition to the state with opposition to capitalist wage labor and concentrated private property, favoring federations of workers, collective ownership, and mutual aid. Individualist anarchism, associated with Max Stirner’s The Ego and Its Own (1844) and Benjamin Tucker’s Instead of a Book (1893), emphasizes individual autonomy and voluntary contract, rejecting both the state and compulsory collective arrangements.
Anarchism shares modern libertarianism’s skepticism toward the state, but historical anarchism developed mainly as an anti-capitalist, socialist movement. Mainstream libertarianism accepts a limited protective government, and its anarcho-capitalist branch defends private capital and property rights, which social anarchists regard as forms of coercive hierarchy.
Fascism
The word traces back to the Latin fasces, the Roman bundle of rods bound around an axe that signified civic unity and a magistrate’s authority. In late nineteenth-century Italy, fascio (plural fasci) meant a political league or union, and was used by socialist-leaning labor leagues such as the Fasci Siciliani. In 1919, Benito Mussolini founded the Fasci Italiani di Combattimento in Milan, uniting former interventionist socialists, syndicalists, and war veterans. After the March on Rome in 1922 and the creation of a single-party dictatorship by 1925, fascismo became the international name for a new political phenomenon.
Scholars avoid a single checklist and instead define fascism through several distinct approaches. Roger Griffin, in The Nature of Fascism (1991), identifies a “fascist minimum”: palingenetic ultranationalism. Palingenesis comes from the Greek for “birth again,” and in plain terms it means a core myth of national rebirth after a period of perceived decadence and decline. Griffin treats fascism as a revolutionary ideology aiming at a new modern order, which excludes traditional military or reactionary dictatorships, such as Franco’s Spain, that sought to preserve or restore the old order. His critics argue that focusing on ideology underplays what fascist states actually did, including their compromises with traditional elites and their use of violence.
Robert Paxton, in The Anatomy of Fascism (2004), defines fascism instead by political behavior and historical process. He points to an obsessive preoccupation with national decline, humiliation, or victimhood; compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity; a mass party of nationalist militants working with traditional elites such as the military, the church, and business leaders; and the abandonment of democratic liberties in favor of redemptive violence and expansion without ethical or legal restraint. Paxton traces five stages: origin, rooting, seizing power, exercising power, and radicalization. His approach explains why fascist movements abandoned their early anti-capitalist rhetoric once they made pacts with conservative elites. His critics note that a definition built on interwar Europe’s history is hard to apply to movements elsewhere or later.
Stanley Payne, in A History of Fascism, 1914–1945 (1995), offers a three-part typology. The first part is the fascist “negations”: anti-liberalism, anti-communism, and anti-conservatism. The second is fascism’s goals: a regulated multi-class national economy, imperial expansion, national rebirth, and authoritarian state power. The third is its style: mass mobilization, aestheticized symbolism, the military organization of civilian followers, male dominance, charismatic leadership, and the glorification of violence. Historians debate whether a list of traits can capture the dynamics that drove fascist regimes toward radicalization and genocide.
Emilio Gentile, in The Sacralization of Politics in Fascist Italy (1996), defines fascism as a modern revolutionary movement that created a political religion. The party claimed exclusive custody of the nation’s regeneration, treated the state as sacred, and built rituals and myths designed to subordinate individual identity to the nation. Critics argue that “political religion” can stretch to cover non-fascist regimes that also used mass ritual, including Marxist-Leninist states.
These accounts overlap without forming a strict checklist. The recurring features are ultranationalism, meaning a non-pluralist conception of the nation as an organic whole; rejection of parliamentary negotiation, party competition, and individual rights as divisive; opposition to Marxist class conflict and internationalism, which is central for Payne and Gentile; paramilitary violence against perceived internal enemies; and orchestrated mass mobilization around a charismatic leader.
Several elements remain contested. Biological racism and antisemitism were foundational to German National Socialism, but not to early Italian Fascism, which enacted antisemitic racial laws only in 1938. Corporatist economics was promoted as an alternative to both capitalism and socialism, but in practice corporatist bodies stayed subordinate to the state, and private ownership continued under state direction. Scholars also disagree about whether fascism was revolutionary or counter-revolutionary. Zeev Sternhell, in The Birth of Fascist Ideology (1994; originally published in French in 1989), argues that it was a revolutionary synthesis of nationalism and a non-materialist socialism. From a Marxist perspective, Nicos Poulantzas, in Fascism and Dictatorship (1970), located fascism within the imperialist stage of capitalism. He argued that fascist regimes ultimately reestablished the political dominance of big monopoly capital, while mobilizing the lower middle class and reorganizing a state apparatus in political crisis.
Three distinctions matter. Juan Linz distinguished authoritarian regimes, which feature limited pluralism, no elaborate ideology, and limited mobilization, from fascist movements, which seek ideological transformation and mass mobilization. Totalitarianism describes a structure of total state control, while fascism is a movement and ideology; whether fascist Italy ever became totalitarian is itself debated (see Totalitarianism). And although fascist leaders allied with conservative elites such as monarchists, industrialists, and military officers to gain office, conservatism’s commitment to continuity and inherited institutions is at odds with fascism’s revolutionary aims.
A note on Nazism. Paxton, Payne, and Griffin classify German National Socialism as an extreme, radicalized form of fascism, sharing its anti-liberalism, anti-Marxism, leader principle, paramilitary violence, and myth of national regeneration. What set Nazism apart was the central place of biological race. Italian Fascism held that the state creates the nation; Nazism subordinated the state to a racially defined people. Nazism viewed history as a racial struggle against Jews, culminating in the Holocaust, and conceived expansion as racial conquest and depopulation in Eastern Europe. Because these features were so specific to Nazism, scholars do not treat them as requirements of fascism in general.
In public argument, calling something fascist can signal tyrannical state control, violent suppression of dissent, racism, xenophobia, or unchecked executive power. The word departs from scholarly definitions when used as a general synonym for authoritarianism, repression, intolerance, or politics the speaker strongly opposes. Those characteristics alone do not establish fascism under the major frameworks.
Populism
The word comes from the Latin populus, “the people.” Its modern political use dates to the late nineteenth century. In the United States, agrarian alliances coalesced into the People’s Party in 1891. The party held its first national convention in Omaha in 1892, where it adopted the Omaha Platform and became widely known as the Populist Party. It sought monetary reform, regulation and public ownership of railroads, and more direct democracy against corporate and financial power. In the Russian Empire, the Narodniki (from narod, “people”) of the 1860s and 1870s were radical intellectuals who advocated land for peasant communes.
Scholars disagree about what kind of thing populism is. Cas Mudde, in “The Populist Zeitgeist” (2004), and Mudde with Cristóbal Rovira Kaltwasser, in Populism: A Very Short Introduction (2017), define it as a “thin-centered ideology” that divides society into two homogeneous, opposed camps, “the pure people” and “the corrupt elite,” and holds that politics should express the general will of the people. Because that core is narrow, populism cannot stand alone and attaches to “host” ideologies such as socialism, nationalism, or agrarianism. Jan-Werner Müller, in What Is Populism? (2016), argues that criticism of elites is not enough: populism’s defining mark is anti-pluralism, the claim that only the populists represent the authentic people, which treats opponents as illegitimate. Ernesto Laclau, in On Populist Reason (2005), saw populism not as an ideology but as a political logic through which unmet demands join into a collective “people” opposed to established power. Kurt Weyland (2001) defines it as a strategy by which a personalist leader seeks direct, unmediated support from large numbers of followers. Benjamin Moffitt, in The Global Rise of Populism (2016), treats it as a political style: appeals to “the people,” the performance of crisis, and deliberate “bad manners” toward elite conventions.
Across these approaches, several elements recur: the opposition between the people and the elite, which is central to the ideational definition; an appeal to popular sovereignty over intermediary institutions; and a tension with pluralism. Müller makes anti-pluralism the defining mark, while Mudde and Rovira Kaltwasser analyze the tension between populism’s homogeneous people and liberal democracy’s checks and minority rights, alongside its democratic appeal to popular sovereignty. Charismatic leaders appear prominently in many cases, but scholars do not treat a single leader as a requirement of populism in every approach.
Because its core is thin, populism has taken varied forms. Agrarian populism, like the People’s Party, organized farmers against banking and railroad power. Mid-twentieth-century Latin American populist movements mobilized workers and the poor against domestic oligarchies and foreign economic dominance. Cultural-national populism defines the people by native cultural or national identity, against transnational institutions, political establishments, and outside cultural influences. The labels left-wing and right-wing populism are used for these economic and cultural variants, though particular movements can mix elements of both.
Populism is not the same as popularity. Under the ideational definition, mass appeal, charisma, or popular policies do not by themselves make a movement populist, and neither does aggressive rhetoric or emotional appeal. The term describes a way of framing political representation, not an individual’s speaking style.
In public argument, calling something populist can signal demagoguery, irresponsible proposals, anti-intellectualism, disregard for constitutional norms, or mob rule, or, from the other direction, grassroots democracy, defense of ordinary citizens, and resistance to entrenched establishments. The word departs from scholarly usage when mass popularity or anti-establishment politics alone is treated as proof of populism.
Nationalism
The word comes from the Latin natio, “birth” or “a people of common descent,” from nasci, “to be born.” Modern nationalism took shape around the political transformations of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, as ideas of popular sovereignty increasingly challenged dynastic rule and tied political authority to “the nation.”
David Miller, surveying the subject in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, describes nationalism as a family of views holding that national identity has political significance and that nations have claims to some form of self-determination. Ernest Gellner, in Nations and Nationalism (1983), gave the influential formulation that the national and the political unit should be congruent. Scholars disagree about how much autonomy self-determination involves; it is a matter of degree, and can be achieved through federal arrangements or regional autonomy without full independence.
Scholars also disagree about what a nation is. Modernists treat nations as recent creations. Gellner argued that industrial society needed a literate, culturally uniform workforce, and that “it is nationalism which engenders nations, and not the other way round.” Benedict Anderson, in Imagined Communities (1983), described the nation as an imagined political community, limited and sovereign, made possible by newspapers and novels printed for mass markets. Eric Hobsbawm and Terence Ranger, in The Invention of Tradition (1983), argued that many national symbols and rituals were modern inventions. Anthony D. Smith, in The Ethnic Origins of Nations (1986), challenged this view, arguing that modern nations are built on older cultural ties, collective memories, and shared symbols, which nationalism transforms rather than creates from nothing.
Scholars distinguish civic from ethnic nationalism. Civic nationalism defines membership by citizenship, allegiance, shared laws, and participation, regardless of ancestry; it is associated with Ernest Renan’s 1882 description of the nation as a “daily plebiscite.” Ethnic nationalism defines membership by ancestry, language, tradition, and shared memory; later nationalist thought connected it with ideas of cultural nationhood influenced by Johann Gottfried Herder. Bernard Yack, in Nationalism and the Moral Psychology of Community (2012), criticizes this as an idealized division: civic nations carry cultural and historical attachments, and ethnic nations use legal and institutional means to integrate people.
Three distinctions clarify the word. George Orwell, in “Notes on Nationalism” (1945), separated patriotism, which is defensive devotion to a particular place and way of life that one has no wish to force on others, from nationalism, which seeks collective power and prestige. Maurizio Viroli, in For Love of Country (1995), describes patriotism as loyalty to a republic’s common liberties and laws, and nationalism as loyalty to a cultural or ethnic community. Nationalism is also distinct from xenophobia: exclusionary nationalisms draw on hostility to outsiders, but nationalism can center on cultural autonomy or civic self-government without it. And it is distinct from imperialism, which brings many peoples under one imperial center. Nationalism helped dissolve multinational empires such as the Austro-Hungarian, Ottoman, and British, though powerful nation-states have also justified imperial expansion through claims of national mission.
Nationalism has played very different historical roles. It powered anti-colonial independence movements, such as India’s; nineteenth-century unifications, such as Italy’s Risorgimento, associated with Giuseppe Mazzini; and the persecution, forced assimilation, or expulsion of minorities, up to ethnic cleansing and border wars. National identity has also been associated with democratic solidarity. Richard Johnston, Keith Banting, Will Kymlicka, and Stuart Soroka studied national identity and support for the welfare state, and found that in some contexts it increased support for redistribution, though the relationship varies substantially from country to country.
In public argument, calling someone nationalist can signal xenophobia, isolationism, militarism, or racial exclusion, or, from the other direction, civic solidarity, self-reliance, cultural self-preservation, and loyalty to fellow citizens. The word departs from scholarly usage when applied only as an epithet for chauvinism or racism. Scholars use it for a broad principle that has driven democratic, anti-colonial, and liberal movements alongside illiberal ones.
Left and Right
The terms come from the seating of France’s National Assembly in the summer of 1789, during the debate over King Louis XVI’s veto. To the left of the assembly’s president sat those who wanted to limit or abolish the royal veto and end feudal privileges. To the right sat those who wanted an absolute royal veto and the traditional rights of the crown, the aristocracy, and the Catholic Church. The original left was not socialist. It was made up mainly of middle-class deputies, lawyers, and constitutional reformers who defended private property, free contract, and the removal of feudal barriers to commerce. The left’s later identification with opposition to private capitalism developed over the nineteenth century, through industrial labor movements, utopian socialism, and Marxism.
What counts as left or right has shifted ever since. In nineteenth-century Europe, supporters of free markets, deregulation, and secular constitutional government were classed on the left, opposite the landed aristocracy and monarchists. By the mid-twentieth century, as the main divide in industrial countries became market capitalism versus state-managed welfare and redistribution, free-market economics came to be classed on the right. The word “liberal” shows the same drift across borders: in American usage it came to mean a center-left position, while elsewhere it has kept associations with classical liberalism and market economics (see Liberalism). The meaning of the left-right axis can also vary across countries and political systems. Herbert Kitschelt, in Post-Communist Party Systems (1999), documented how in 1990s Eastern Europe, market reformers were identified with the right, while former communist parties resisting rapid privatization were classed on the left.
Scholars offer several competing explanations of what divides left from right.
Equality. Norberto Bobbio, in Left and Right (1994; English edition 1996), argued that the lasting criterion is attitude toward equality. The left gives greater weight to reducing social inequalities through collective action; the right shows greater acceptance of inequality and hierarchy, and greater skepticism toward political efforts to reduce them. Bobbio stressed that neither side holds an absolute position: the left does not seek to abolish every distinction, and the right does not reject basic legal equality. Perry Anderson, in “A Sense of the Left” (New Left Review, 1998), criticized Bobbio’s account for bundling several separable propositions about inequality, resting the distinction on what Anderson regarded as a fragile foundation. Anthony Giddens, in The Third Way (1998), accepted equality and social justice as central to the left, but argued that Bobbio’s definition needed refinement, proposing a broader “politics of emancipation.”
Economics. One familiar version of the divide is economic: positions on the left generally place greater weight on economic regulation, redistribution, labor protections, and public provision, while positions on the right generally place greater weight on private enterprise, property rights, market allocation, and limits on state economic intervention. It corresponds to the class cleavage between owners and workers described by Lipset and Rokkan (below). Its limitation is that it cannot place movements that combine redistributive economics with cultural conservatism, or free-market economics with socially permissive views.
Culture. Liesbet Hooghe, Gary Marks, and Carole Wilson (2002) identified a second, cultural dimension in European party competition, running from GAL (green, alternative, libertarian), emphasizing universal rights, environmental protection, and cosmopolitanism, to TAN (traditional, authoritarian, nationalist), emphasizing national sovereignty, native culture, traditional values, and order. They developed it specifically for European politics, not as a universal axis. Hanspeter Kriesi and colleagues, in West European Politics in the Age of Globalization (2008), proposed an alternative account of the new divides, as a conflict between “integration” and “demarcation” driven by globalization’s winners and losers.
Social cleavages. Seymour Martin Lipset and Stein Rokkan, in Party Systems and Voter Alignments (1967), argued that party alignments in Western democracies reflected historical divisions produced by national and industrial revolutions: center versus periphery, state versus church, land versus industry, and owner versus worker. They argued that by the 1920s, Western European party systems had largely settled around these divisions. Later scholarship, including Russell Dalton’s Citizen Politics (2002), documents how rising education, secularization, and post-industrial economies have loosened voters’ attachment to cleavage-based parties.
Movement versus order. French political analysis has long described one historical left-right division as “movement” versus “order.” Maurice Duverger discussed this tradition, while crediting earlier French electoral sociologists, notably André Siegfried and François Goguel. Bobbio argued that change versus conservation could not serve as the fundamental distinction between left and right, pointing out that reactionary movements seek radical change to dismantle existing systems, while established left-wing governments defend the status quo.
Because a single line cannot hold all of these dimensions, political scientists have built two-axis maps, as in Hans Eysenck’s The Psychology of Politics (1954), David Nolan’s 1971 chart, and the work of Hooghe, Marks, and Wilson. These place economics on one axis (market allocation versus state redistribution) and social or authority questions on the other (individual autonomy versus state authority and tradition), which shows how a movement can combine state-managed economics with cultural conservatism, or markets with cosmopolitan social views. Spatial models have their critics. Donald Stokes, in “Spatial Models of Party Competition” (1963), argued that many political issues are not positions along a line at all, but “valence” issues: shared goals such as economic competence or honest government, on which parties compete over perceived ability rather than location.
Political scientists measure left and right in four main ways, each with limits. Voter self-placement surveys, such as the World Values Survey and the European Social Survey, ask respondents to place themselves on a scale, but people in different countries and with different educations attach different meanings to the words. Expert surveys, such as the Chapel Hill Expert Survey developed by Hooghe, Marks, and colleagues, ask specialists to place parties, but experts’ judgments can reflect their own country’s political climate. Manifesto analysis, developed by the Manifesto Research Group under Ian Budge and colleagues, codes the themes in party platforms, but platforms reflect campaign positioning more than governing behavior. Roll-call analysis, such as Keith Poole and Howard Rosenthal’s DW-NOMINATE scores, maps legislators by their votes, but it reflects one legislature’s dynamics, including party discipline, rather than universal positions.
In public argument, “left” can signal egalitarian reform, social justice, and protection of workers, or, from the other direction, fiscal recklessness, state control, and cultural decline. “Right” can signal fiscal prudence, personal responsibility, order, and tradition, or, from the other direction, callousness toward the poor, corporate greed, and social exclusion. The labels depart from analytical usage when treated as rigid, universal categories. In political analysis, what counts as left or right depends on a particular era, country, and institutional setting.
Center and Centrism
In spatial theory, the center is not an ideology with its own philosophical content. It is defined by the positions on either side, and it shifts as they shift.
The best-known account of the center as electoral strategy has two parts. Duncan Black, in “On the Rationale of Group Decision-making” (1948), showed mathematically that when preferences fall along a single dimension, the alternative preferred by the median voter defeats any other in a two-way majority vote. Anthony Downs, in An Economic Theory of Democracy (1957), applied that reasoning to party competition, arguing that in a two-party system under plurality rules, parties tend to converge toward the median voter. Bernard Grofman, in “Downs and Two-Party Convergence” (2004), reviewed how changes to Downs’s assumptions explain why parties may not converge on the middle.
Anthony Giddens’s The Third Way (1998) sought to move beyond the old division between state-centered social democracy and free-market economics. Wolfgang Merkel and colleagues, in Social Democracy in Power (2008), classify the Third Way as a programmatic revision of center-left social democracy, not a general philosophy of centrism.
“Centrist” and “moderate” overlap in political science. In voting studies and polling, both can describe voters or representatives with middle scores on spatial scales. Some political theory distinguishes holding an intermediate policy position from favoring pragmatic, non-confrontational methods, but there is no settled taxonomy, and the terminology is not standardized.
In public argument, “centrist” can signal pragmatism, moderation, rationality, and balance, or, from the other direction, lack of conviction, moral cowardice, complacency, or defense of an unequal status quo. The label departs from its definition when the center is assumed to represent an objective, balanced truth between two flawed extremes. In spatial analysis, the center has no fixed value of its own; its location depends on where the surrounding positions happen to stand.
Far, Radical, and Extreme
Scholars do not treat “far,” “radical,” and “extreme” as interchangeable, and they do not use identical criteria on the two sides of the spectrum.
Cas Mudde, in Populist Radical Right Parties in Europe (2007) and The Far Right Today (2019), uses “far right” as an umbrella category divided by each group’s relationship to democracy. The extreme right rejects the procedural core of democracy, opposing popular sovereignty and majority rule, and has historically endorsed authoritarian rule or violence. The radical right accepts procedural democracy, including competitive elections, but opposes core institutions of liberal democracy: minority rights, checks and balances, judicial independence, and pluralism.
Luke March, in Radical Left Parties in Europe (2011), draws a distinction on the left that does not mirror Mudde’s. The radical left rejects the capitalist economic framework and seeks a root-and-branch transformation of economic power, but it accepts political democracy, operating within multiparty systems and defending civil liberties. The extreme left shows far greater hostility to liberal democracy, rejects compromise with capitalist political forces, stresses struggle outside parliament, and holds a more uncompromising anti-capitalist doctrine.
The two literatures emphasize different defining features. Scholarship on the far right focuses on nativism, authoritarianism, populism, and the line between procedural and liberal democracy. Scholarship on the far left focuses on economic ideology, the degree of anti-capitalism, strategy outside parliament, and internationalism.
“Horseshoe theory,” associated with the French philosopher Jean-Pierre Faye (Théorie du récit, 1972), holds that the spectrum bends like a horseshoe, so that the extreme left and extreme right come close to each other in methods, authoritarianism, and hostility to the center. Its explanatory value is contested. Some observers point to shared features, such as anti-system rhetoric, distrust of institutions, and historical resort to state coercion. Cas Mudde, in The Far Right Today, criticizes the model for obscuring fundamental differences in core goals, views on human equality, and definitions of the political community.
In public argument, “far left” and “far right” can signal illegitimacy, fanaticism, danger to the constitutional order, or kinship with historical totalitarian regimes. Outside scholarly usage, the terms can mark any position regarded as outside the mainstream. Scholarly classifications depend on specified criteria rather than distance from the center alone, and the criteria used for the two sides are not identical.