Pp. 9-10
In general, when a tough policy on a sensitive issue is made-and it may
often correspond with the position of the radical Right-it is in the interest of
the more moderate parties to present it to the public in softer and more appealing
packaging. By doing so, moderates benefit in two ways. First, they prorpote
a popular policy, such as restrictions on immigration. Second, they
prevent the radical right-wing parties from racking up political capital.36 In
light of these barriers it appears that if we adopt an approach in which political
parties are still the key pillars of the contemporary policy making process, we
will lose the key to understanding the success of the radical right. The present-
day political landscape compels us to adopt a more flexible unit of analysis,
namely "the political network."37
Political networks are a subcategory of social network. 8 Due to the lack of
an agreed-upon definition for this concept, which only recently made its mark in
the academic literature,39 I define the political network as "a loose and dynamic composite
composite of political actors whose worldview on various issues overlaps and who
frequently come together for the purpose of shaping policies in their their shared ideology.”
Networks of this type include a wide range of actors:
social movements, special interest groups, political parties, individual members
of parliament, and civil servants. The boundaries of political networks are elusive
and tend to expand, contract, and change their shapes quite often. Due to
this dynamic nature, networks are devoid of both a clear hierarchy and regulations.
Consequently, political networks are not easy to delineate. Their structure
instead resembles an entangled web of subgroups, each of which has its own
characteristics and agendas.40
Political networks thrive in ambiguous settings.41 We akening states that are
characterized by expanding areas of "gray" serve as an ideal environment in
which networks can operate successfully.42 By gray areas I refer to institutions
with overlapping domains of authority, fuzzy legal frameworks, and unclew regulations.
Even strong states that enjoy an extensive degree of control oVer their
respective societies do not prevent such networks from operating.43 The fluid
quality of these networks enables them to easily break through the craks in the
barriers of the political process.44 They usually maneuver slowly and elusively,
and follow an evolutionary rather than a revolutionary path.
Networks operate in many ways.45 To give just two illustrative examples, if a
political party that is associated with a network fails to enter policy-making
getting elected and to collaborate with them in order to advance common
goals. No less interesting is the recruitment of bureaucrats who are in positions
of influence on policy making, by central actors in the network, and even the
installation of civil servants in such positions. In many countries, bureaucrats
wield much more power than is customarily attributed to them.46 Unlike
elected officials, they spend a considerable part of their career in one ministry;
are well-versed in its maze of regulations, and, in situations in which there is a
lack of consistency at the elected political level, they become both makers and
implementers of policies.47
To sum up, the fluid configuration of the net work and the fact that it is not
easy to attribute its different segments and operations to one big political
maneuver enables it to slowly permeate the state, operate from within, and cumulatively
advance its agenda. Only if we move the camera lens backwards to the
point where it is possible to observe the process from a greater distance in terms
of both time and space can we grasp how much larger and more powerful is the
whole in comparison to the mere sum of its parts.
"Today, radical right-wing political networks operate in many parts of the
world. However, their success in shaping policies on· the national 'level is still
limited.48 Actually, it is impossible to identify recent cases in which they have
become the central political force in a given country49-with the exception of
Israel.”
And with the US "New Right,” in the US. And when you look at it in terms of their “shared ideology,”
with Tikvah Fund, Kohelet Forum, National Conservatism, Likud, Kahaneist parties, the Republican Party,
and even the Democrats in their present form of a Goldwaterite ideological party, one can see the outline of the
"New Fascism,” or as they prefer; the New Right.