Following trends in Europe over the past decade, support for the Radical Right has recently grown more significant in the United States and the United Kingdom. While the United Kingdom has witnessed the rise of Radical Right fringe groups, the United States’ political spectrum has been altered by the Tea Party and the election of Donald Trump. This article asks what predicts White individuals’ support for such groups. In original, representative surveys of White individuals in Great Britain and the United States, we use an innovative technique to measure subjective social, political, and economic status that captures individuals’ perceptions of increasing or decreasing deprivation over time. We then analyze the impact of these deprivation measures on support for the Radical Right among Republicans (Conservatives), Democrats (Labourites), and Independents. We show that nostalgic deprivation among White respondents drives support for the Radical Right in the United Kingdom and the United States.

Objectives. Although Christian fundamentalist elites have become increasingly vocal in their support for Israel in the ongoing conflict in the Middle East, it is not clear that this rhetoric has produced differing attitudes about U.S. foreign policy in public opinion. This article examines whether such differences exist, and whether they are rooted in aspects of fundamentalist eschatology.Methods. Data from a national telephone survey on attitudes toward the Middle East conflict and U.S. policy were examined using multivariate regression and means comparisons.Results. These results demonstrate that Christian fundamentalists are the strongest supporters of Israel in America today. Fundamentalists have greater sympathy for Israel, oppose policies to pressure Israel, and are distinctive from all other groups in their high levels of support for continuing Israeli settlements in occupied Palestinian territories, as well as complete Israeli control of Jerusalem.Conclusion. Christian fundamentalists in America are distinctive on this vital issue in American foreign policy because of their literal interpretation of the Bible or their leaders' increased cues on Middle East policies, or both. This suggests that religion is now an important factor in understanding public opinion on U.S. foreign policy in the region.

No abstract

Public health scholars have previously explored the impact of culture upon various aspects of infectious disease policy. Similarly, regime type, while less studied, has been suggested as a possible explanation for varying rates of efficacy in infection vulnerability, mitigation, and abatement. The COVID‐19 pandemic offers an intriguing opportunity to test whether culture or level of societal freedom affects how different societies manage a serious pandemic challenge. We examine whether societies that are more free or have different cultures are more or less effective at managing the spread of COVID‐19. To examine possible correlational pathways, we conduct a country‐level regression analysis. After controlling for population size, income, stringency of government policies, population density, and age dispersion, we find that the level of freedom in a political system is unrelated to rates of COVID‐19 infection, at least in the time period under study. By contrast, two cultural families seemed to show at least temporary superiority in disease response: Confucian and South Asian culturally affiliated nations. While our results may be artifacts of aspects of the disease not yet revealed by science, if they are sustained by future research, they potentially offer insights into unusual intersections of culture and public health.

No abstract