Difference Between Democratic And Liberal Views On Governing

Political ideology within a state is established by examining individual ideas about politics and how they are related (Shively, 2014). Even though, not every political ideas are equal, however, they bear some sort of relationship or resemblance. Generally within a state, “ideologies are usually determine by intellectual structure from which one can derive number of disparate policy positions” (Shively, 2014, p. 25).

Since the dawn of human civilization, individuals have been constantly immersed in conflict with each other. Whether these conflicts stemmed from socio-economic inequalities, political disputes, property rights, religious disagreements, or any other contentious matter, the creation of human governments has necessarily been to handle, organize, and resolve conflicts between people within communities in the least destructive manner possible. Governments act as a formal instrument through which individuals in a society can agree upon shared rules, solve problems, and engage in cooperative behavior, and it helps avoid the severe repercussions resulting from revolutionary social upheaval. The purpose of government – as spelled out in the Preamble of the Constitution – is to “establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.” While countless forms of government have sprung up over the centuries, only one has been resilient enough and has had the pervasive influence necessary to stand the test of time: democracy. While there are many different types of democracies, this paper will focus on liberal democracy specifically. A liberal democracy is a form of representative democracy that operates under the paradigm of classical liberalism. According to the Center for Research on Globalization, liberal democracy is defined as:

“The government is merely a servant -- merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn't. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them.”

It is yet another day I live and walk this earth. About 2 years ago an election occurred where two parties --the Democratic and Whig Party--had split because of the slavery issue occurring in our nation. As you know, I am against slavery and believe that keeping men, women, and children as slaves is morally wrong. I, for one, would not like to be treated like crud and taken away from my dear family. Why is it that the South believe they are happy in unsanitary and cruel conditions? Blacks are people too, just like us, there is no need to treat them like they are anything less.

Democracy is the ultimate political form of ideological liberalism. It refers to the ideal form of state, and is common to both classical and modern liberals.

Out of all the political parties in Canada, the Liberal party is the party that matches my beliefs and values the best. From their plans for the environment, to the economical agenda, up to social issues, their beliefs are quite similar to the ones I have.

The Liberal Party has traditionally been known for its success in appealing to a range of different regional, social and ethnic groups. Since the establishment of the party, it has lacked a clear core principle and structure because the party was made up of diverse groups of interests. The party could sometime be seen as more supportive of social welfare spending than their Conservatives counterpart. However, it could also commonly be understood as a tactic to counteract the threat posed by the New Democratic Party.

The Federalists and the Republicans had been disputing for a while. One of the disputes was over The Federal Government. Federalists favored a strong national government that would rule the citizenry directly rather than through the states and preferred a loose interpretation of the Constitution in order to manipulate things to go their way. Federalists were Pro-British. Republicans feared a strong national government would return the country to monarchy and trample on individual liberty, which is something they had fought towards for years. They believed in states’ rights and a strict interpretation of the Constitution. Republicans were generally Pro-French.

Democrats vying to become the next chair of the Democratic National Committee are set to face off for the final time before the organization's election on Saturday.

This essay will assess the relationship between liberalism and conservatism by exploring the differences in ideological beliefs of these two ideologies. Ideology can be defined as “set of interrelated and more or less coherent ideas” that constitutes of both “descriptive and normative element” on how a society works (Heywood, 2007, pp. 6-7). One of the most popular ideology in contemporary politics is liberalism which accord individual liberty and free market as its primary priority. On the other hand, conservatism is generally known for advocating tradition, societal state and authority. Firstly, we will look at theories developed by liberalism and conservatism on creation of state. It would then be followed by liberalism’s notion of individuality and individual liberty versus conservatism’s emphasis on individual imperfectionism and need for society. Thereafter, we will observe liberalism and conservatism as political ideology and how it has evolved over time. The essay will be summed up by a conclusion in the end. The terms, liberalism and conservatism mentioned in this essay are intended to be synonymous to their traditional or classical thoughts and beliefs. Every argument presented in this essay are intended to support the claim that liberalism and conservatism are not compatible ideologies. By compatible, I meant being consistent without any disagreements.

In addition to Aristotle, economist Joseph Schumpeter is also of importance because of his theories on democracy. In his book Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy, Schumpeter explicated his new theory of democracy and defines it as the “rule of the politician.” With this new theory, he makes it clear that he is deviating from the classical notion of 18th century democracy presented by Rousseau and Bentham. Schumpeter writes that this traditional model of democracy could be defined as “the democratic method is that institutional arrangement for arriving at political decisions which realizes the common good by making the people itself decide issues through the election of individuals who are to assemble in order to carry out its will” (Schumpeter 250). His major critique on such democracy entails the assumption of a common good because he believes that people cannot achieve a conclusion of what the general will is. Thus, Schumpeter posits his own theory of democracy, which can be defined as follows: “that institutional arrangement for arriving at political decisions in which individuals acquire the power to decide by means of a competitive struggle for the people’s vote” (Schumpeter 269). This

Realism and Liberalism is one of the most important theoretical approaches to the study of international studies. As for realism, it has been argue that realism is not just a simple perspective, as it is actually a complex area of debate rather than just single specific of point. In Realism, we can identify such classic and specific versions, some realist who call themselves as neo-realist or structural realist, and so on. As for Liberalism, its history goes back to when the scholars tried to come up with a new theory that could end the despair of the First World War. Liberalism starts to take up the world politics after the fall of Idealism after the Second World War as they have more pessimistic view of the world politics. Both of these theories

Ruling a society has taken many forms, be it the the cruel hand of dictator or the frantic shared thoughts of democracy; an organized state can arguably be ruled by only one end of the spectrum. To conceptualize this view, philosophers Schmitt and Arendt present their interpretations on the political. The central thesis to my paper is then, to present both Schmitt’s and Arendt’s concept of the political and discern which is the most viable from of governing. Schmitt’s structure of the political rest in the friend-enemy distinction dictated by the sovereign. Opposite his view is Arendt, who perceives the political existing with the masses so as to ensure happiness exist. In today’s political climate the oscillation between these two views is the masses believe in Arendt’s theory, while in actual practice of power, Schmitt’s view is currently exercised. The political is then argued as either an autocratic regime or a democratic government. Where Arendt agues for the later, it’s feasibility is highly improbable. Schmitt’s concept of the former, though practiced today, is not completely correct but, presents the best form of rule. The order of a state is best ruled by a sovereign so as to allow the country to realize it’s full capabilities.

The terms ‘socialism’ and liberalism’ are used a lot nowadays, and many people often mistake one for the other. In order to differentiate between these two terms, one must keep in mind the clear-cut differences by defining the prevailing ideology of each term. The tenets of socialism assert that the state should wield total economic power by manipulating prices of goods and wages of workers.