Political Science Essay Structure

High level Political science essay format example
View more...
   EMBED

Share

Preview only show first 6 pages with water mark for full document please download

Transcript

Jeff’s POLITICAL SCIENCE SUPPLEMENT Political Science 1: Introduction to the Government of the United States A critical and in-depth understanding of the Government of the United States relies upon knowledge of political concepts. While a wide variety of conceptual frameworks can help explain American politics, these lecture notes examine three categories of political concepts. First is a short summary of basic concepts that serve as building blocks for the study of U.S. government. A review of political, economic and social ideologies relevant for understanding American politics follows. Finally, a brief review of political theory provides an introduction into the philosophical origins of government in the United States and its policies. Part 1 - Basic Concepts To identify concepts as political, begs the question what is political. On the one hand, it may appear obvious that the word “political” refers to something that is of or related to politics or government. Consequently, being knowledgeable about political concepts means you have some understanding of politics or government. But what is politics or government? Politics was described by political scientist Harold D. Lasswell as the process for deciding “who gets what, when and how.” Obvious examples “who gets what, when and how” could include Congress deciding to increase the minimum wage or California voters rejecting a reduction in community college fees. In addition to these formal decisions, politics may be informal, such as when a boss ignores company policy and promotes a brownnoser as their personal favorite. Similarly, members of Congress do much of their work behind closed doors where decisions reflect the personal power of key players. Whether the example is office politics, backroom deals or politics of the bedroom, it should be clear that “who gets what, when and how” is often determined informally and permeates our life. If we break down this definition of "politics," we can see that "who gets what" suggests somebody is getting a thing, like a resource, while "when and how" refers to a decision-making process. Making or influencing these decisions requires power. In this context, power is the use of resources to get what you want. Moreover, by using resources to decide or influence “who gets what, when and how,” people may get more resources. Hence, power begets power. Usually we think of power as coercive. Coercive power occurs when a person gets another person to do something they would not otherwise do. It is about force. In American politics, a subtle example of coercive power is when people feel compelled to follow laws they dislike. Politics also involves enabling power, which refers to the development of resources through cooperation and mutual support. People will often pool together their own resources to gain better access to government, e.g. forming an interest group or getting somebody elected. Whether coercive or enabling, power is both the means and the ends of politics. We usually associate politics with government, and for good reason. Government formally establishes rules that determine much about “who gets what, when and how.” Indeed, in this June 2013 Poli Sci 1, Hernandez, ELAC June 2013 Political Science Supplement Page 2 of 20 class, we define government as rulership. The government’s rules are the law, enforceable and accepted with the public as the authority. The highest level of rulemaking authority rests with a sovereign government. Sovereignty refers to the highest level of government, when there is no higher level of authority. Any sovereign government by definition has political autonomy or independence, i.e., freedom from any other governing power. The political autonomy of a sovereign government is associated with the principle of self-determination, i.e., the right of govern one’s self. The fact that a sovereign government can command people, businesses and others to follow its rules is an indication of its authority as well as the legitimacy conferred by its citizens. A sovereign government’s authority is the actual capacity it has to command, which requires a monopoly on coercive power. When push comes to shove, governments have demonstrated their coercive power through the actual use of force. Normally the coercive power of the United States government is present as a constant threat of force that lies in the background or in our memory. A government’s threat of force may be so subtle that it does not seem to exist at all until we learn of government crackdowns, such as occurred in May 2007 in Los Angeles against immigrant rights supporters. Since September 11, 2001, the U.S. government has increasingly employed subtle and not so subtle forms of coercive power in the name of homeland security. A government has legitimacy when the people follow its rules. We can always question the “democratic legitimacy” or “moral legitimacy” of a dictator. But if the people are following a dictator’s orders than the dictator has minimal level of legitimacy need for de facto rulership. Before the U.S. government ousted him, Saddam Hussein used force to ensure the legitimacy of his rule. Similarly, the U.S. government has been relying upon force to help ensure the legitimacy of the current Iraqi government. When a government has trouble getting people to follow its laws, its legitimacy is threatened and it must rely upon coercive power. This occurred during the Civil Unrest of 1992 that followed the acquittal of police officers involved in the beating of Rodney King. In spite of many examples of political conflicts, such as the widespread protest against War with Iraq or the AntiGlobalization ‘Battle in Seattle’ in 1999, many Americans may argue that their government is a democracy because they believe it ensures their freedom and equality. But what is democracy? Based on its Greek origins, the word democracy refers to rule by the people. In a direct democracy, the people make the laws. In this form of government, also called a pure democracy or classical democracy, the people are the rulers. However, in the United States, representatives, chosen through elections, make nearly all of the law. Indeed, no national government today can claim to function primarily as a direct democracy. For this reason, the U.S. government and other governments have been described by some as examples of indirect democracy, also referred to as a representative democracy, electoral democracy, or democratic republic. In an indirect democracy, the people select representatives who rule in the interest of the people. Theoretically, the people would be the rulers, albeit indirectly. But are you a ruler? Poli Sci 1, Hernandez, ELAC June 2013 Political Science Supplement Page 3 of 20 This last question leads to the first challenge facing any society seeking to have democracy, namely, participation of the people. Even an indirect democracy requires that the people participate by holding their representatives accountable on Election Day. In other words, an election is job evaluation time and elected officials should be just as nervous about it as any other worker would be. But is that so? Given the low rates of political knowledge and participation, it is doubtful that participation is sufficient to ensure accountability. Similarly, the definition of “rule by the people” suggests that each member of the public will have equal influence in rulership. For this reason, equality is another challenge facing any democracy. Minimally, this would involve procedural equality in the rules governing participation, also referred to as political equality. Procedural equality means the rules treat people the same. Generally, the rules governing participation in the United States political system do treat people the same but that does not mean people have equal influence. What is lacking in all “democratic” societies is substantive equality concerning participation. Substantive equality refers to people having equal resources. When comes to resources needed for influencing government, people are not equal. Even if a society could successfully meet the challenges of participation and equality, the definition of democracy implies yet another challenge: the dangers inherent in majority rule. Most people recognize majority rule (50% + 1) as how most decisions are made in a democracy. But if the same majority always wins, those in the minority never get a chance rule. If unchecked, majority rule may turn into the majority ruling over the minority, instead of rule by the people. When a dominant majority uses this advantage to harm the interests of others, you no longer have democracy—you have majoritarianism. This potential concerned the framers of the U.S. Constitution and some have described the American system as majority rule with minority rights. Even though the definition of democracy, i.e. rule by the people, only requires a minimal level of civil liberties and civil rights necessary for political participation, Americans have many more constitutional guarantees that protect minorities and individuals. These constitutional principles reflect America’s liberal democratic political tradition. Liberal democracy refers to rule by the people with guarantees of freedom and equality. Given that all governments require legitimacy, a liberal democracy faces the special challenge of balancing its use of coercive power to ensure people obey the laws and the constitutional limits on its power to interfere in an individual’s freedom, i.e. balancing legitimacy and civil liberties. Liberal democratic governments are not supposed to limit individual freedom arbitrarily; restrictions on liberty require good reason. In addition to this challenge, liberal democracy involves a conflict between those who want more liberty and those who want society to be more equal, i.e. balancing civil liberties and civil rights. When the United States was founded, it was commonly understood that liberty meant people could run their private lives, including economic activity, as they chose to without government interference. For generations, this meant liberal democracy condoned racial, gender, and class inequality. Social movements and reformists won victories for greater equality and, thereby, redefined liberal democracy to include protections for civil rights, women’s rights and workers’ rights. But these gains in equality have resulted in the loss of liberty for others. For example, Poli Sci 1, Hernandez, ELAC June 2013 Political Science Supplement Page 4 of 20 throughout American history, labor activists, socialists and reformers have asserted that most workers are denied their economic freedom due to the harm and exploitation they endure in a capitalist economy. Indeed, in 1968, just before his death, civil rights leader Dr. Martin Luther King sought to organize poor people of all races on the premise that poverty would have to be abolished for all people to enjoy freedom. But government social welfare programs and worker protections, such as increases in the minimum wage, have been opposed by many wealthy individuals and businesses as unfairly requiring them to pay higher taxes and limiting their freedom to make decisions pertaining to their business. Consequently, complicating the challenge of liberal democratic governance in America is the fact that there are competing views on how to organize our political, economic and social lives. Part 2 – Ideologies The approach in this part of my notes is to examine political, economic and social ideologies that help explain politics in the United States. An ideology is a complex system of beliefs and practices about how the world should be organized. Clearly, many of us have our own ideas about politics. When verbalized, these ideas can be called political attitudes. Sometimes, our ideas about politics are also evident by our actions, even when we are not aware of it. Actions that have political consequences can be called political behavior. Ideologies systematically organize political attitudes and/or political behavior. Ideologies are also evident in how institutions operate. Whether large or small, institutions are guided, formally and informally, by ideologies. An institution is a systematic set of social relationships that embodies common values, involves a regular or predictable pattern of behavior, and is aimed at a shared purpose. The social, political and economic ideologies defined in this part of my notes can also be thought of as systems for organizing institutions, such as American culture, the political system, or the economy. Being familiar with each of the following ideologies will help you to understand the structure and policies of the United States government. POLITICAL IDEOLOGIES & SYSTEMS People have many conflicting ideas about how the political system (government, parties, interests & citizens) should be organized and the extent to which political power should be concentrated. Most of the ideologies central to issues raised in American politics advocate the dispersal of political power in many hands. This reflects a general distrust in government shared by many Americans. It also is an indication that democracy, rule by the people, is best achieved with political equality and freedom. Below is a description of political ideologies, beginning with those that advocate a complete decentralization of power and ending with those that prescribe the greatest concentration of power. Anarchism is the ideology that believes government must be overthrown and replaced with self-rule because all social institutions with leaders and rules are exploitative and inherently evil. Anarchists believe that no form of social organization can avoid being harmful to the individuals in it because there will be people in charge and power corrupts. During the 1990’s, in Portland, Oregon, anarchists destroyed private property in a campaign against corporations and ‘yuppie’ Poli Sci 1, Hernandez, ELAC June 2013 Political Science Supplement Page 5 of 20 materialism. Anarchists can be thought of as extreme individualists. They believe self-rule by each individual is the solution for bettering society. It is this point that makes anarchism different from another extreme form of individualism, nihilism. Like the title and attitude of the Black Flag punk rock hit of the early 1980's, “No Values,” nihilists advocate dismantling institutions but do not really care about bettering society. Unlike the anarchist, the nihilist is an individual who wants to advance her or his own ideas, interests, pleasure, or power even if it harms the rest of society. By contrast, anarchists are sometimes guided by a view of human nature that leads to humanitarianism and socialism. Democratic Ideologies & Systems Although not an ideology, direct democracy is a political system that has a long tradition, dating back to Athens in Ancient Greece, and can be conduit for different ideologies. Direct democracy is when the people make the laws. In its pure form, that would mean no representatives; no elected politicians. Every citizen would have to participate in discussing and voting on any law. In colonial America, “civic republicans” practiced direct democracy at Town Hall meetings. They also advocated short, single terms for elected representatives and weak executives. Civic republicanism was prevalent amongst anti-federalists who opposed the Constitution of 1787. Today, populism is the ideology most associated with direct democracy. Many described the recall of California Governor Gray Davis in 2003 as populist movement. A recall, initiative and referendum are three examples of direct democracy in California elections. Recall refers to a special election, caused by a citizen petition, where voters get to decide if they want to remove a specific elected official from office. An initiative is a law drafted and proposed by citizens who gathered sufficient signatures on a petition. Once proposed, initiatives are placed on the ballot and decided upon by the voters. When citizens vote upon laws proposed or enacted by the legislature, it is called a referendum. Jury duty is another example of direct democracy. Critics of direct democracy have argued that a charismatic leader or a powerful elite, such as the wealthy or the clergy, could manipulate the citizen lawmakers. Others have worried that direct democracy could turn into tyranny by the majority, otherwise known as majoritarianism. Indeed, the word ostracize comes from the practice in Athenian democracy of banishing undesirables from society. Indeed, to restrict majoritarianism, direct democracies sometimes required a super majority (e.g. 2/3) or unanimous consent for special matters. Direct democracy does not ensure the best decisions will be made or that popular opinion will always rule, but it does advocate processes where any member of the public can participate in decision making. Population size does not explain why we do not make more use of direct democracy. Rather, the reason is that most people simply do not want, or cannot spend time, to actively participate in making laws. Thus, like most countries, we seek to have some form of indirect democracy, i.e. rule by representatives selected by the people. The next four democratic ideologies—populism, pluralism, republicanism and libertarianism—are versions of indirect democracy. Populism advocates democratic rule based upon popular opinion or mass support. Populism is sometimes called majoritarian democracy because the majority’s point of view is likely to be most influence under this form of democracy than any other form. People seeking greater citizen Poli Sci 1, Hernandez, ELAC June 2013 Political Science Supplement Page 6 of 20 participation in government, such as civic republicans, also fits the definition of populism. Earlier in American history, populism emerged as a political force in the interest of the poor and powerless, often in the form of a social movement. Some populist movements have been lead by charismatic leaders. The populist President Andrew Jackson called himself the President for the ‘common man.’ Jesse Jackson in the 1980s, Ross Perot in the 1990s, and Barack Obama in 2008 demonstrated populist appeal by recruiting voters who were not previously active in politics. Generally, populist movements have not had much long-term success in American politics due to the power of entrenched interests. However, average citizens have been weary of populism at times as well. One fear is that the cult of personality that surrounds populist leaders can lead to majoritarianism or fascism. Hitler started as a populist leader. Another fear associated with populism is that the majority will seek to restrict individual liberty or harm minority groups. Pluralism offer greater protection from tyranny by the majority than direct democracy or populism. It envisions a society where citizens are free to form interest groups and compete with others for influence. The term marketplace of ideas is often associated with pluralism because it advocates a diversity of opinions as well as freedom to associate with like-minded individuals. Pluralism is an ideology that proposes a government ruled by many interests. It can be thought of as democracy through interest groups and with a free exchange of ideas. By promoting equal access for all groups, pluralism helps to enfranchise underrepresented minority groups. However, interest groups do not have an equal resources for influencing legislators. Thus, while poorer and underrepresented interests have equal opportunity to have influence, the wealthy and powerful interest groups have more resources to have actual influence, which leaves many discouraged. Moreover, while many different interest groups may represent their interests, most members of society have not formally joined any interest group. Thus, the challenge for pluralist democracy is to have sufficient regulations to avoid overrepresentation by powerful organized interests to the detriment of the interests of the unorganized mass of citizens. Given the multicultural reality of modern society, some call for cultural pluralism, which advocates ‘group rights’ for all cultural groups. In Canada, efforts have made to give group rights to national minorities. However, a concern raised by feminists and others is that group rights may have the effect of weakening the individual rights of group members. Republicanism is the ideology that advocates representative democracy in the strictest sense. It opposes populism and pluralism as harmful to functioning of a representative democracy. Republicanism is different from ‘civic republicanism.’ ‘Civic republicanism’ refers to participation in political life by average citizens for the good of the whole society, and today is described as populism. In contrast, the ideology of republicanism proposes that representatives can rule in the interest of society better than the general public or special interest groups. The framers of the constitution favored republicanism because they did not trust public opinion. Though they wanted to ensure the public could hold the government accountable for any corruption, mal-administration or poor governance, most of these ‘founding fathers’ did not trust political power in the hands of the citizenry. With threat of social unrest hanging over their heads in the form of Shays Rebellion, the framers only allowed one house of the bicameral Poli Sci 1, Hernandez, ELAC June 2013 Political Science Supplement Page 7 of 20 legislature to be elected directly by the people. To limit the influence of public passions on decision-making, voters were not allowed to directly select the Senate and president. The framers might turn over in their graves if they could witness the effort our representatives spend on fundraising and political posturing due to the influence of direct elections. Libertarianism focuses on individual liberty as essential to democracy, and places a premium on protecting that liberty. Libertarianism advocates maximizing self-rule by limiting government's power to interfere with liberty while still ensuring that government can protect liberties, like personal and economic freedom. Some libertarians are mostly concerned with civil and political liberty. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) undertakes controversial lawsuits to protect the freedom of speech or other civil liberties. Civil libertarians are passionate about preventing government restrictions on the Internet. If libertarianism only concerned with civil and political liberty, then it would be similar to pluralism, direct democracy or anarchy in promoting the broad dispersal of power. Other libertarians, such as the Libertarian Party, advocate a strong military, no government assistance of any kind, no income taxes, and no government interference in the economy. Libertarianism has the potential to be quite authoritarian in the defense of economic liberty, leading to a greater concentration of economic and political power for wealthy elites. Authoritarian Ideologies Authoritarianism can be defined as the promotion of government with absolute power to rule society, i.e. power that is not limited by popular consent or constitutional constraints. Indeed, authoritarianism tends to exist when there is a passive and obedient public. Typically, it involves a concentration of political power in the hands of a few interests. Autocracy, despotism and dictatorship refer to regimes governed by a single authoritarian ruler. One example is a monarchy. Government controlled by an elite few may take the form of an oligarchy, theocracy (as in religious fundamentalism), aristocracy or military dictatorship. Although authoritarianism opposes rule by the people, it may emerge as a large group, even a majority, dominating the rest of society. One reason that the framers of the constitution were afraid of pubic opinion is they were concerned about majoritarianism, authoritarianism by the majority. Some obvious examples in America’s history include the Salem Witch trials, the persistence of slavery and discrimination, the concentration of Japanese-Americans in ‘internment camps,’ and McCarthyism. Be careful not to use the word communism as a substitute for the word authoritarianism. The term communism is sometimes confused with Communism with a capital C, i.e. the doctrine of a Community Party regime. However, the communism originally referred to communal-based economies or political systems, which we would describe as direct democracy. Certainly, rule by a one-party state, like a Community Party regime, may be authoritarian. Indeed, some Communist Party revolutionaries, such as Leninist or Maoist, have advocated rule by a vanguard of party elites. Nevertheless, regimes that deprive people of freedom are authoritarian. Totalitarianism is an extreme form of authoritarianism and involves the greatest concentration of power. Totalitarian rulers have complete control of political authority and use it to manage government, the economy and society. It usually involves the absence of civil rights or liberties and requires active demonstrations of support for the ideology and/or supreme leader. Two obvious examples include Germany under the leadership of Hitler’s Nazi Party and the Soviet Poli Sci 1, Hernandez, ELAC June 2013 Political Science Supplement Page 8 of 20 Union when the Communist Party was under Stalin’s control. The former Taliban regime of Afghanistan imposed religious totalitarianism, particularly in its repression of women. ECONOMIC IDEOLOGIES & SYSTEMS There have been a variety of economic systems in the history of humankind. But no two economic ideologies have more relevance today than capitalism and socialism. Like most liberal democracies, the United States has a mixed economy. The American economy is mostly capitalist, with some elements of socialism. Capitalism is an economic ideology that advocates private property, free markets, profit, competition and minimal or no government regulation. Private property means the ownership of an economy’s capacity to produce the goods and services needed by society is under the control of private individuals and private corporations. The theory of private property is that the economy works best when entrepreneurs are free from regulation, taxation and other government restrictions. Pure capitalism, also called laissez-faire capitalism, has full freedom from government interference. Laissez-faire capitalism relies solely upon free markets. By free markets, we mean the free exchange of goods and services supplied by producers in response to consumer demand without interference from government or other barriers such as monopolies. A central tenet of this system of free enterprise is that it maximizes efficiency by inducing competition amongst producers in their quest for profit. Profit is the driving force of capitalism. Under capitalism, there exist cyclical periods of economic growth and downturns sometimes called boom and bust. The greatest bust in U.S. history was the Great Depression, which occurred in the 1930's. Government regulation and social spending under the New Deal program used elements of socialism to soften the effects of that depressions and future recessions. Socialism is an economic ideology that advocates public ownership of property as well as government regulation of supply and demand for ensuring a desirable quality of life for all people. Socialism may lead to calls for radical political change along the lines advocated by the most influential socialist, Karl Marx. Marxism criticized capitalism for exploiting workers, advocated social and economic revolution, prescribed public ownership of property, sought an equitable distribution of income, proposed replacing the profit motive and competition with social cooperation and responsibility, and predicted the merging of all classes into one. The sort of socialist revolution theorized by Karl Marx has not happened. Instead, socialism has existed as either a command economy under an authoritarian Communist Party regime or as democratic socialism. Under a command economy, the state dictates the conditions for supply and demand. This was the path administered by the Communist party of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. By contrast, several European states today have what is called “democratic socialism” which focuses on redistributing wealth more equitably. Democratic socialism combines the goal of economic democracy with political democracy, usually in the form of pluralism or populism. SOCIAL IDEOLOGIES Three sets of social ideologies underlie many cultural debates in American politics.: nationalism and internationalism, elitism and egalitarianism, and individualism and communalism. What follows is a brief description of these ideologies. Poli Sci 1, Hernandez, ELAC June 2013 Political Science Supplement Page 9 of 20 Nationalism is a unifying social ideology that inspires group loyalty and collective identity. Collective identity refers to an identity that is shared and felt by a group of people, like how many Americans felt towards each other after the Attack of September 11th. Nationalism usually involves a shared culture, ethnicity, religion, language, territory, and history. It has been a powerful, liberating ideology in the struggle for political independence. In the 20th century, nationalism motivated popular revolutions in many countries. It also explains why so many Iraqis have violently opposed the United States military occupation. Nationalism derives its meaning from the term nation. Technically, a nation is not a country or a state. A country is a geographic territory governed by a state. A state is a political system that governs a particular country as the sovereign power. A nation is a group of people with a common sense of their collective identity and a desire for sovereignty, usually over a particular geographic area. To be sovereign is to have no higher ruler but oneself, and that is the desire of all nations. By definition, nationalists want an independent government for their people and a nation has its own state or wants to have one. We live in an era when most sovereign governments are nation-states. Nation-state refers to a government that is sovereign on behalf of people who share a single national identity and, typically, controls some specific territorial boundaries, i.e., a country. The goal of a sovereign government distinguishes nationalism from other forms of collective identity, such as religious, ethnic or racial pride. During the 1960 and 1970's, Black Nationalism and Chicano Nationalism promoted empowerment as the means for overcoming discrimination. Some white persons who felt threatened by civil rights gains joined the growing ranks of white nationalist movements in the 1980's, such as "Aryan Nations." Sometimes nationalism has resulted in the oppression of individuals to enforce national or cultural group solidarity, the exclusion and discrimination of “outsiders,” and many conflicts between different nations. It has also been responsible for encouraging ethnocentrism, when people glorify their role and importance of their culture group in contrast to others. An unfortunate example of ethnocentrism in the United States has been some Americans devaluing other cultural perspectives and dismissing criticism of America from people in other countries. An ideology that seeks to transcend national boundaries is internationalism. Most forms of internationalism recognize nation-states but challenge their claims to full sovereignty. The traditional form of internationalism is humanism or humanitarianism. Humanists view people as primarily all members of the same human species. Humanitarians such as the United Nations, Green Peace, human rights activists and international relief agencies demonstrate this view by what they do. They practice an internationalism that cherishes humanity as a collective identity. Humanitarianism often coexists with people who have national or global interests. For instance, many Americans who consider themselves patriotic will still donate food, clothes or money to help famine victims or refugees in other countries. Historically, most American environmentalists have adopted a humanist perspective, arguing that by protecting all of the world’s life forms we preserve our humanity. The American labor movement has moved toward a humanist internationalism by pressing the U.S. government to trade only with nations that ensure their workers have the right to organize a union. Poli Sci 1, Hernandez, ELAC June 2013 Political Science Supplement Page 10 of 20 Both nationalism and humanitarianism have been challenged by another internationalism, i.e. globalization. Globalization refers to the rise of transnational corporations and global capitalism. Politically, it promotes the notion that national governments must not intervene in the global marketplace. Socially, globalization seeks to counteract government policies proposed by many collective identity movements, nationalist or humanist. In recent years, globalization has successfully removed restrictions on trade that were designed to protect national industries, prevent destruction of the environment, or penalize violations of international human rights law. Evidence of this trend can be found in the emergence of new regional institutions, such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the European Union (EU), and global institutions, e.g., the WTO, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. The debate over nationalism versus internationalism can be quite controversial and complex. Humanitarians are often in conflict with cultural practices of some nations. For example, human rights activists want international actions to be taken against developing nations (formerly called Third World nations) that allow husbands to rape their wives or that deny women the right to own property. These same developing nations criticize human rights activists for imposing Western liberal values. Nationalists in these countries also criticize developed nations like the United States for not opening their markets to free trade quickly enough. Many nationalists in developed countries also oppose free trade but for different reasons. Some American nationalists want to use trade restrictions to protect American industries that may not be able to compete against the cheap labor available in other countries. Meanwhile, in December 1999, humanitarians clashed with proponents of globalization on the issue of free trade at the meeting of the WTO in Seattle. Humanitarians advocate restricting trade from nations that damage the environment, deny workers’ rights, or harm human rights. The complexity of the nationalism versus internationalism debate serves as analogy for other ideological questions such as how best to organize a culturally diverse society. Multiculturalism refers to a variety of ideologies that value and encourage a diversity of different cultures within one society or one world. Multiculturalism is sometimes promoted as a plurality of nationalisms where each particular cultural group is respected. Each cultural minority would have a voice in national government as well as rights of self-determination and autonomy for their particular group. Consequently, multiculturalism in liberal-democratic societies such as the United States are sometimes described as cultural pluralism In contrast to this particularist view, the universalist perspective of multiculturalism criticizes claims for group rights made by cultural minority groups as simply too divisive. The universalist approach seeks to include individual members of cultural minority groups by giving them the same rights and privileges universally given to all individuals, while denying claims for group rights. While universalists claim to support humanitarianism by treating all individuals the same, particularists argue universalists are promoting the nationalism of the dominant cultural group. Elitism and egalitarianism are another set of social ideologies that are part of American culture. Elitism is any system of ideas linked by the belief that some people are better than others and, that based on their superiority, they have a legitimate claim to greater power, status, and other Poli Sci 1, Hernandez, ELAC June 2013 Political Science Supplement Page 11 of 20 benefits. The superior people, or elites, may be members of a specific group, such as gender, class, or race. They may claim superior intelligence, education, wealth, family lineage, etc. Elitism has been a prevalent ideology in American politics since its inception. Some supporters of the Federalist cause exhibited elitism when they argued that the best rulers would be persons of wealth and of an appropriate family lineage. Later, Thomas Jefferson argued that the virtuous, talented elite of society, the ‘natural aristocracy,’ should run government based on merit. Many, if not most, Americans share Thomas Jefferson’s commitment to meritocracy, a system where people advance based on their honor, skills, and achievements. Like all forms of elitism, meritocracy views society as made up of un-equals, some better skilled than others. Egalitarianism refers to an ideology with the central premise that all people are equal or should be equal. Egalitarians believe that all citizens have the capacity to govern. Greek philosopher Aristotle recognized this belief as a hallmark of democracy. He noted that since all citizens are equally fit to govern in a democracy a lottery could be used to select who would fill public office. Feminism is an egalitarian ideology that promotes gender equality in all aspects of life, i.e., social, political and economic equality between men and women. Though some feminists argue that institutions need to be made gender neutral, i.e., that men and women are treated the same, other feminists counter that institutions can only achieve gender equality when gender is consciously taken into account. Taking gender into account would mean changing institutional practices in our society, political system and economy to advance long-neglected concerns of women, such as education, reproductive rights, childcare, sexual harassment, pornography, etc. Still, all feminists agree that more must be done to extend the equality women have in public life to private life as well. Government advances egalitarianism by either treating people the same, procedural equality, or making sure all people have equal resources, substantive equality. Procedural egalitarianism emphasizes equal opportunity. What matters most for procedural egalitarians is that everybody operate under the same, impartial rules even if the outcome produces inequality by favoring some over others. In contrast, substantive egalitarians want to ensure that society is organized so that all citizens actually have equal resources and power. A society totally committed to substantive egalitarianism would provide all its citizens with the resources necessary for having equal influence over political decisions, and would require that the outcome of those decisions advance social and economic equality. In the recent debate over Proposition 209, opponents of affirmative action made arguments based on procedural equality while proponents of affirmative action argued for substantive equality. The final set of social ideologies is individualism and communalism. Individualism seeks to advance the rights and interests of the individual over the collective good of society. According to this ideology, the primary right and interest of the individual is liberty, i.e. the freedom to do as one pleases without restraint by others. Most individualists believe that society is advanced only when each individual’s liberty is protected and that it is harmed when any individual’s liberty is threatened. Individualists do not necessarily advocate weak government. Indeed, many individualists associate themselves with the political ideology of libertarianism, which advocates Poli Sci 1, Hernandez, ELAC June 2013 Political Science Supplement Page 12 of 20 a government that is limited but strong enough to protect individual liberty. Perhaps, John Stuart Mill expressed the ideology of individualism best in his essay On Liberty (1859). Mill put forth the harm principle whereby (a) an individual’s liberty should be protected so long as that person does not harm others or interfere in there lives; but (b) if a person actually harms another individual through the use of their liberty than government must restrict the offenders liberty. By contrast, communalism or communitarianism defines an ideology that places the needs of society over those of the individual. In the Republic, Plato (427-347 B.C.) put forth a communalist position when he reasoned that no person is self-sufficient. He argued that individuals have always existed in societies because they have to depend upon one another. Since individuals could not survive without the benefit of society, they have an obligation to help fulfill the needs of society before they can start doing as they please. Some communalists argue that individuals will have more freedom under a ‘cooperative’ society than under chaos. People who are concerned about the decline of social order are communalists. Communalists promote the power of society to protect and nurture its citizens, even at that expense of individuals. Compared to other countries, the United States has a stronger commitment to individualism than communalism. American individualism is evident in the value placed upon personal privacy, i.e., the individualistic belief that the public should not regulate what we do in private. The importance of respecting personal privacy seemed to override concerns about social appearances in the public support President Clinton received even after the revelations of his affair with intern Monica Lewinsky. Individualism is also apparent in the belief shared by many Americans that a young adult should do what it takes to successfully pursue of a career and not be held back by family or community ties. Nevertheless, communalism also has a long history in America, as documented by Alexis de Tocqueville in Democracy in America (1848). Today, communalism is apparent in public attitudes toward criminal justice. Public opinion polls found that many Americans are willing to sacrifice constitutional liberties, such as the protection from unreasonable search and seizure, for the goal of homeland security. Furthermore, communalism may lead to socialism on the left or fascism on the right. Many communalists are motivated by religious fundamentalism. Ironically, from the perspective of a Christian fundamentalist or Osama bin Laden, it is logical that society should impose morality on all individuals if that is what God dictates. IDEOLOGIES IN AMERICAN POLITICAL CULTURE: LIBERALISM & CONSERVATISM Although policies of the United States government can be analyzed based on political, economic or social ideologies, only two ideologies are commonly discussed: liberalism or conservatism. Both ideologies take a certain position regarding political change. For instance, liberalism seeks progressive change. Progressive change involves policy reforms that promote social justice and equality while loosening restrictions on civil liberties. This is associated with individualism and libertarianism on most civil liberties, egalitarianism and communalism on civil rights, and commitments to humanitarianism and substantive egalitarianism regarding economic policies. Consequently, the policies of progressive change tend to be advocated by a socialist leaning populism, pluralism or republicanism. At their core, liberals believe social, political and economic improvements can and should be made to ensure each person can fulfill their own potential. Poli Sci 1, Hernandez, ELAC June 2013 Political Science Supplement Page 13 of 20 Conservatism seeks to maintain the status quo or promote regressive change. Regressive change means abandoning the use of government for the purpose of redistributing wealth and achieving social justice, and while strengthening the moral and religious order in society. This may involve a religiously inspired populism and communalism. Conservatives may advocate less civil rights policies in the interest of individualism and procedural egalitarianism. They will advocate nationalism or communalism when restricting civil liberties in the interest of national security or law and order. On economic issues, it promotes republicanism or libertarianism in support of laissez-faire capitalism and globalization or nationalism. The core premise of conservatism today is that naive liberals have promoted an expansion of government programs or regulations that harm individual initiative and have loosened civil liberties to point of weakening social and moral order. Policy Issue Liberal Position Conservative Position Amnesty for undocumented immigrants supported by humanitarians opposed by nationalists Expansion of Free trade opposed by humanitarians & nationalists supported by globalization Affirmative action programs supported by substantive egalitarians opposed by procedural egalitarians Opening an adult bookstore supported by individualists opposed by communalists Workplace drug testing opposed by individualists supported by communalists Laws prohibiting sexual harassment supported by communalists opposed by individualists Most spending goes to social welfare supported by populists opposed by libertarians Most spending goes to military spending opposed by humanitarians supported by libertarianism More opportunities for citizen participation supported by populists and pluralists opposed by republicanism Progressive income tax (tax rich more) supported by socialists opposed by capitalists Cut taxes on corporations opposed by socialists supported by capitalists Part 3 - Political Theory It is no accident that liberal or conservative are the ideologies more often used instead of the aforementioned political, economic or social ideologies. Today’s notion of liberalism and conservatism are the product of vast changes that can be identified in the history of political theory. Even the structure of government in the United States descends from a long line of philosophical and social movements. The dominant philosophical influence on American politics has come from Western (United States and European) political theory. (Sadly, academia is only beginning to uncover the long neglected ideas of women and non-Western theorists.) Certain key concepts in the history of Western political theory laid the groundwork for the development of liberalism and conservatism in American politics. Poli Sci 1, Hernandez, ELAC June 2013 Political Science Supplement Page 14 of 20 ANCIENT THEORIES Three philosophical sources from the ancient period were Plato, Aristotle and Roman law. Greek philosopher Plato established the foundation for Western philosophy in part because he stressed the importance of reason for human nature and political society. Plato’s writings consist of dialogues where his mentor Socrates challenged prevailing opinions in pursuit of the truth, a practice that led to Socrates’ execution. Like Socrates, Plato viewed reason as the philosophical skill for knowing abstract truths about the Good. For Plato, true reality consisted of abstract ideals while the concrete things in everyday life were merely opinions, only slightly closer to the truth than illusions. By the Good, Plato meant the highest aim that all forms of knowledge excel to. The Good is so perfect that only a few, namely philosophers, might come to know it. Reason guides their spiritual inclination toward courage, while their passionate element is restrained by both reason and courage. This same sort of harmony in the philosopher’s soul is what Plato prescribed for society, with reason as the guide and philosophers as the kings. Plato prescribed an education system for identifying the potential of each man and women for serving as philosophers, guardians or artisans. His emphasis on education as well as his philosophy greatly influenced the Enlightenment. Another Greek philosopher, Aristotle, found greater truth in the practical wisdom used for solving problems in everyday life than in Plato’s reason for understanding abstract knowledge. Aristotle described reason as a process for understanding natural justice, i.e., the principles of justice that are derived from nature. Apart from reason, Aristotle explained that with practical wisdom citizens could administer political justice in the interest of the entire community. Aristotle viewed people as political animals and citizenship, participation in ruling, as the highest vocation that one could hope to excel to and achieve spiritual happiness. In analyzing the Greek city-states, Aristotle called the democratic citizen one who rules and is ruled in turn. Participation in politics is the hallmark of democratic citizenship in Aristotle’s thought. Aristotle's ethical view of citizenship was evident in the 'civic republicanism' of early Americans. After the Romans conquered the Greeks and expanded their empire, they also implemented legal theory to incorporate three kinds of law: natural, Roman, and local. The Roman concept of natural law, the notion that there is a right way of doing things built into nature, actually derives from the Greeks, such as Plato and Aristotle. Roman law consisted of rules laid down by the sovereign empire and all persons within the empire were subject to it. Some subjects possessed legal citizenship, special rights and privileges granted by a sovereign state, that were not necessarily tied to political participation. You will notice that this idea of legal citizenship is closer to how Americans think of citizenship today than Aristotle’s idea of the democratic citizen. Finally, local authorities were allowed to make positive law, i.e., the passing of legislation for addressing a specific problem or circumstance, so long as it did not interfere with the universal jurisdiction of the Roman law. FEUDALISM Following the fall of the Roman Empire, the European societies regressed technologically and institutionally. Consequently, there was a decline in the importance of reason for organizing political society, whether Plato’s abstract reason or Aristotle’s practical wisdom. With the Poli Sci 1, Hernandez, ELAC June 2013 Political Science Supplement Page 15 of 20 general decline of social, political and economic institutions, individual warriors held the only real power. It was in the personal arrangements between warriors and landholders that feudalism was born. The lords, or the landowners, contracted with vassals, i.e., warriors, for defense of their estate or territory. In return for the vassal’s loyalty and allegiance, the lord would pay the vassal a fee, often in the form of a portion of their estate. Overtime, a complex system of lords and vassals emerged as lords would take over other lords and vassals would hire vassals of their own. Under mature feudalism, the monarch (to whom all would pledge allegiance), the clergy, and the lords and vassals held power, in that order. This power was based upon both personal and structural resources. All three classes and the underclass of workers bound to the land, the serfs, could depend upon heredity to determine their station in life. Virtually no social mobility existed. Also, personal honor was a currency that one gave to maintain one’s relationship within the feudal hierarchy. Personal commitment to the hierarchy was required; there was no room for voluntary action. So, in addition to heredity and honor, hierarchy was another key feature. It was the higher classes that had the authority to resolve disputes by sitting as judges to make common law, i.e., law based on custom as determined by judges and continued as precedent in subsequent courts. It is no wonder that the work relationship of the serf to the lord was that of servant to master, respectively. Finally, religious order served to reinforce the hierarchy. In the latter half of feudalism, when the monarch came to rely less upon the lords and vassals, the clergy argued there existed a divine right of kings, i.e., a god given right to be the absolute ruler. While there are many explanations for the fall of feudalism, such as the reliance upon professional armies, the following have direct bearing on the change toward classical liberalism. With the Magna Carta in 1215, the English parliament set regulations upon the fees of the lords and vassals, in effect challenging the absolute power of the monarch. In the 13th century, St. Thomas Aquinas recovered the writings of Aristotle and offered a Christian/Roman reinterpretation. Consistent with the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, Aquinas considered God to be the source of eternal law, which could not be known directly. Eternal law was partly communicated through divine law (the word of God) in the form of the scriptures, Old Testament and New Testament, and was revealed solely to the clergy. Eternal law was also evident in nature, where it took the form of natural law (God in the world) and could be understood through the reason. Positive law was only a subset of natural and divine law. Reason’s re-emergence as a means for understanding how to organize our lives was crucial to the weakening of feudalism and the development of liberalism. On the religious front, the idea that any human with the capacity for reason could have direct access to understanding God was revolutionary. Luther and the Protestant Reformation eventually put forth the notion of personal revelation and salvation. As for understanding nature through reason, the seeds for modern science developed. Early scholars like Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo raised challenges to church doctrine through inductive reasoning, meaning they demonstrated alternative truths about nature with empirical evidence. The revolution in science and the newfound freedom of religious practice set the basis for the enlightenment. Poli Sci 1, Hernandez, ELAC June 2013 Political Science Supplement Page 16 of 20 Perhaps the greatest undoing for feudalism was economic. In the market cities or burgers, a new entrepreneurial class emerged. As their own independent source of wealth gave them a basis for power outside of the feudal order, these merchant capitalists became less willing to pay taxes to, and follow the dictates of, the monarch. CLASSICAL LIBERALISM: THE START OF LIBERAL DEMOCRACY By the 17th and 18th century, feudalism was being challenged by a revolutionary ideology that was later called liberalism. To distinguish this particular form of liberalism from later versions, I will refer to it as classical liberalism. Classical liberalism is the product of the historical period known as the Enlightenment. The Enlightenment promoted science, philosophy and reason as a means for solving social problems and improving human civilization. Classical liberalism includes the two Enlightenment principles of rationalism and human perfectability. Rationalism refers to the use of human reasoning to understand nature and solve problems in the world. Human perfectability is the idea that humans have the natural capacity to improve themselves individually and as a society. Rationalism and human perfectability suggests that the unequal feudal order based on personal politics could and should be replaced by a society based on proceduralism. Proceduralism refers to organizing and improving society with impartial rules. Based in part on the principles of rationalism and human perfectability, classical liberalism advanced the notion that government needed to be held accountable for the protection of individual liberty. In the mid-17th century, Thomas Hobbes contributed to this idea when he proposed a social contract. Hobbes felt that men in their natural state are harmful to each other, ‘man is a wolf to man,’ which is why men agree to a social contract with the monarch. As long as the monarch guarantees order and the protection of certain liberties, the people are obligated to provide their allegiance to the state. By 1690, John Locke articulated an alternative vision of the relations of the people with the state. Locke believed that in the state of nature men were endowed with reason by God and were given free rein to make productive use of nature, including their bodily nature, for the purposes of selfpreservation. He presented a vision of individualism and egalitarianism that held all men are endowed with natural rights to life, liberty and property. Men could claim ownership of things in the form of private property because they had ownership over their bodies, which produced things through their labor. Since there was no government, under natural law each man was justified in murdering or enslaving those who violated their natural rights. Locke reasoned that when men left the state of nature, they gave up being individuals and formed a civil society. Civil society refers to the life within social institutions, as opposed to political or economic institutions. John Locke’s assertions about nature underlie his political ideas. Once social ties are formed, men view themselves as a political community and exercise popular sovereignty by creating government. Locke reasoned that men would no longer be able to take matters into their own hands because the purpose of government is protect each person’s natural rights and provide for the common good. Government authority derives from popular consent, which is evident in the willingness of the people to support the system. Given the fundamental rationality of man, Locke argues for constitutionalism, i.e., limited government restrained by the rule of Poli Sci 1, Hernandez, ELAC June 2013 Political Science Supplement Page 17 of 20 law. While advocating a separation of powers, Locke presents the legislature as the most important branch of government since it governs by deliberation, a form of collective reason. Finally, Locke believed it was essential that citizens retain the right to dissent since he believed most people would be reluctant to change government, even a corrupt one. In fact, he made his political argument anonymously while he was the target of persecution as one of the “Dissenters” of the British king during his time. About one hundred years later, his ideas influenced the American Declaration of Independence and protections in the US Constitution: two historical documents that were the result of revolution against the British monarchy. About the same time of the founding of the United States, the French were revolting from rule by aristocracy. Thinkers like Jean-Jacques Rousseau in France (and others in England) complained that there was too much inequality, which served to corrupt the wealthy and powerful. Like the classical liberals, Rousseau argued for an ideal society governed by a social contract. Rousseau did not propose a limited government or constitutionalism like Locke. Instead, Rousseau advocated education and civic religion so that citizens would form a 'general will' of what the people wanted. Though Rousseau was primarily a democratic thinker, his views influenced the civic republicans in the United States and consequently America’s classical liberalism. He called for a form of politics guided by citizens with public virtue instead of private interest. Also, at the end of the 18th century, political economists like Adam Smith were giving more explanation to Locke’s philosophical view of private property. Smith and other political economists articulated the economic arguments of classical liberals. Smith argued that economic self-interest would provide for the most efficient means for building up the Wealth of Nations. He reasoned that the invisible hand of supply and demand guided the free markets of capitalism. Indeed, classical liberals favored free trade. But the economic liberty of private property promoted by classical liberals like Locke and Smith also led to a growing gap between the haves and have nots. In fact, the French Revolution quickly turned violent; it was a short-lived democracy, which turned to mob rule. Even in the United States, there were signs of economic upheaval, such as Shay’s rebellion, at the time the Constitution was drafted. CHALLENGES TO CLASSICAL LIBERALISM: EVOLUTION OF LIBERAL DEMOCRACY We see evidence of classical liberalism today when we recognize the continuing influence of the principles of the Enlightenment, the idea of natural rights, the notion of constitutionalism and the reality of capitalism. However, there have been significant challenges to classical liberalism. Gradually, these challenges served to promote greater democracy and equality than Classical Liberalism promoted. Today, we could call United States a liberal democracy. The evolution of liberal democracy is described in this review of some challenges to classical liberalism. Early on, conservatives, whom I will call classical conservatives, referred to the French Revolution as an example of the problems created by the liberals. Like classical liberals, classical conservatives favored private property. Unlike classical liberals, they favored tradition and honor over rationalism. Classical conservatives are known for promoting organicism, the belief that society is a unified whole, like a living organism, rather than a collection of individuals. They were concerned with maintaining the social fabric and providing a special role Poli Sci 1, Hernandez, ELAC June 2013 Political Science Supplement Page 18 of 20 for the aristocracy. As classical liberalism gained ground in the 19th century, the influence of classical conservatives lessened. The main way that classical liberalism expanded during this period was by expanding the right to vote to men who did not own property. Feminism was another challenge for classical liberalism. Indeed, feminists were early critics of a specific hypocrisy of classical liberals. Though Locke found all men were created equal, women were excluded from public life and relegated to marriages where they had no rights at all. In 1706, Mary Astell challenged the ideas of Locke and his fellow Dissenters when she asked “If all men are born free, how is it that all Women are born slaves?” A Royalist, Astell foresaw that liberal democracy would expand coverture, i.e. laws were husbands covered their wives. In the 1790's, Mary Wollstonecraft reasoned that the advancement of human beings required that both women and men be active and virtuous citizens. Wollstonecraft argued that citizens can be virtuous in public only if they are virtuous in their private life as well. Yet, classical liberalism, like Aristotle before, did not only exclude women from citizenship. Classical liberalism also created a break between a citizen’s public life, where equality was preached, and their private life, where inequality was condoned. Wollstonecraft and subsequent feminists drew attention to this public-private dichotomy in classical liberalism. Today, private life still lacks the level of virtue for both men and women that Wollstonecraft had called for. Nevertheless, feminism has changed liberal democracies. Women now have more procedural equality in public life, such as the right to vote, and face less oppression in private life. With the end of coverture, husbands can be found guilty of rape. Socialism also challenged classical liberalism for not providing for enough equality. Socialists in the early 19th century, like Robert Owen and William Thompson, promoted cooperative associations as models for socialism. The labor union movement also developed to counteract the power of private property owners. But just as classical liberalism was revolutionary ideology against feudalism, Marxism emerged as a revolutionary ideology opposed to classical liberalism. Unlike the classical liberals, Marx was concerned about tangible interests not just ideas. He found that throughout history the ‘haves’ exploited the ‘have nots’ because it had been in their economic interest as a class. According to Marx’s critique, in capitalism exploitation occurs through private property and surplus value. In the capitalist economy, capitalists own the worker’s labor and the products of their labor as commodities. The right of private property allows the capitalist to own the worker in way that is similar to slavery. Though the worker creates the product, the owner pays the worker wages for their labor in an amount that is less than value for the product that was created. Surplus value is the amount of value produced by worker’s labor but not paid to the worker; surplus value is how profit is made. product value (price) = labor value (wages) + surplus value (profit) According to Marx, capitalist exploitation leads to three forms of alienation. The worker is alienated from what he or she produces because the capitalist who designs and owns it. In addition, the worker is alienated from his/her self as a worker because he or she is also an object Poli Sci 1, Hernandez, ELAC June 2013 Political Science Supplement Page 19 of 20 controlled by the owner. The worker is alienated from other human beings because as a worker he or she is not able to realize his/her human nature. Marx believed that the true nature of human beings to be free and creative producers was being denied by capitalism. Marxism is a theory of historical materialism. His theory maintains that the driving force behind history has been class struggle, and that eventually the class of ‘have nots’ rise up and become the ‘haves.’ He described this process as operating dialectically. Dialectics views change as resulting from the potential within a thing to be something other than what it is, like the little chick within an egg. Just as a chick will break the egg in which it develops, Marx reasoned that workers represented the potential downfall of capitalism. Marx predicted that capitalist societies would undergo a series of crises, such as massive unemployment, overproduction, and the development of working class consciousness, which would lead to a socialist revolution. Under Marx’s conception of socialism, government would take over public ownership of the means of production and would force all people into the same economic class. Theoretically, while capitalism could maximize productivity, socialism would achieve greater efficiency and eventually lead to communism. Government would, then, diminish under communism because there would be no ruling class. In reality, there has not been a socialist revolution under advanced capitalism as Marx had predicted. The lack of a socialist revolution in a developed country increasingly makes Marx’s ideas appear utopian, which is precisely how he criticized other socialists who followed Owen and Thompson’s approach. There has been Communist Party revolutions in developing nations inspired partially by Marx but also by Lenin, Mao or other thinkers with authoritarian ideas. While some European liberal democracies were greatly influenced by the democratic tendencies in Marxism, all liberal democracies, including the United States, now include some form of economic equality as a goal. Indeed, the America dream is that if you work hard, you are entitled to some minimum standard of living. The presumption is that if this is not happening, government should help make this a reality. Fascism represented a reactionary challenge to classical liberalism, feminism, and socialism. In the 1930's, fascism emerged as extreme form of nationalism and elitism. It was opposed to intellectuals, rationalism, and liberalism in general. It promotes nationalism through militarism. It promotes ethnocentrism, organicism, and restrictions on civil liberties in defense of the nationstate. Fascist governments operated through state corporatism, where government attempts to organize all sectors of society. What fascism may be most remembered for is the 'cult of personality' that develops around a leader, such as Hitler. Today religious fundamentalists are sometimes called fascists. Certainly, the former rulers of Afghanistan, the Taliban, exhibited characteristics of fascism. Moreover, since September 11th, the fascist tendencies have been on the rise in American politics. Specifically, Bush's policies of promoting American nationalism through increased militarism and restrictions on civil liberties moves us in the direction of fascism. Just as many Afghans supported the religious fascism of the Taliban so too have many Americans supported Bush's policies. There has only been a slight return away from those policies under the Obama administration. Poli Sci 1, Hernandez, ELAC June 2013 Political Science Supplement Page 20 of 20 LIBERAL DEMOCRACY TODAY: MODERN LIBERALISM AND CONSERVATISM Liberal ideologies are identified with the left wing of an ideological spectrum while conservative ideologies are associated with the right wing. The term left and right have their origins from the French parliament during the 19th century. Socialists, reformers and others who sought progressive change sat on the left. On the right would be classical conservatives and other supporters of the status quo who wanted regressive change. In United States, since the 1930's classical liberalism no longer existed as a single ideology. In response to the challenges it faced and new complexity of modern society, classical liberalism has split off into the two ideologies we know today as liberalism and conservatism. For now, I will call these two ideologies modern liberalism and modern conservatism. Modern liberalism promotes progressive change by using government to promote social justice and equality while loosening government restrictions on civil liberties. By no longer using government for the purposing of redistributing wealth and achieving social justice but strengthening its role in enforcing moral and religious order in society, modern conservatism advocates maintaining the status quo or regressive change. Dating back to the 19th century, the word liberal has been associated with many reforms that have promoted enhanced civil liberties and civil rights. Reform liberals have promoted greater freedom and individualism through government action, such as anti-corruption and antidiscrimination laws. Starting in the 1930's, New Deal liberals promoted government policies that regulate the economy to help the working class and spend money on programs for the poor. In the 1960's, the anti-war, black power, brown power, feminist and socialist movements constituted the New Left. Today, many descendants of the New Left will often referred to themselves as simply progressives. Some liberals have rejected the traditional liberalism of the New Deal and the radicalism of the 1960's New Left. These neo-liberals advocate making the U.S. economy more competitive and more involved in the global economy by promoting free trade and cutting back welfare spending and some government regulations. President Bill Clinton was a leader of the neo-liberal movement, which he described as a 'third way' between traditional liberals and conservatives. To some, neo-liberals sound a lot like conservatives. Neo-conservatives, like neo-liberals, emerged as a reaction to the 1960's. But neo-conservatives are more aggressive in their criticism of too much government. Under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, neo-conservatives favor tax cuts and high deficits as a means to discourage future generations from engaging in social spending. They are known for their opposition to political correctness, and have promoted an expansion of U.S. military interventions. Laissezfaire conservatives seek a return to the classical liberal approach to capitalism, little or no government regulation and deficits. Stemming from a lineage with classical conservatives and fascists, organic conservatives emphasize the need to repair the social fabric, such as restricting civil liberties in the interest of the common good. Often sharing allegiance with organic conservatives, Christian fundamentalists make up the Christian Right. They vehemently oppose a woman’s right to abortion and civil rights for homosexuals.