Liberal Or Conservative Analysis

In his essay “Polarized Parties Are Good for America”, Matthew Yglesias asserts that the two-party system is ideal for America. He begins by stating that polarization is bad for elites, as it leaves little to no room for “self-styled players”. He then suggests that the two-party system is beneficial for voters, insisting that having clearly labeled candidates creates a “menu” that allows the masses to know what they’re voting for from the start. He concludes by stating that the problem isn’t in partisanship, but with the small number of parties. In this essay I will prove that the two-party system is bad for America.

In an earlier paper Haidt and Graham(2007) found that for extreme liberals, Harm / Care and Fairness / Reciprocity where almost always relivent, however those who are extremely conservative find that they value all five more equally when making moral choice. This correlates almost perfectly with the earlier paper from Graham, Haidt and Nosek(2009), showing that the findings seem highly reliable. Haidt and Graham(2007) go on to say that the recognition of the final three moral foundations(Ingroup / Loyalty, Authority / Respect and Purity / Sanctity) is key to allowing more fair and even discussions between the two political standpoints.

This investigation attempts to avoid making the same pitfalls that have been described by following an alternative procedure of applying SF and NP morality models. As discussed in chapter three (sections 3.1, 3.1.1, 3.1.2), SF and NP models indicate Lakoff’s prediction about conservatives and progressives way of thinking. Lakoff predicts that if political actors of both parties adopt either SF or NP moral standpoint, accordingly this will affect the politicians’ framing of ideas, issues and will shape the policy they adopt. For Lakoff (1996) the SF and the NP models represent internalized cognitive way of thinking and ultimately acting. They are cognitive models that indicate separate ideological

The essay I read, “The Science of Righteousness” is written by Michael Shermer. The essay vocalizes the work of psychologist Johnathan Haidt’s book The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion. Haidt argues that both liberals and conservatives are wrong. He states that a great majority of people fall on the left-right spectrum. In other words, if one reads a article about gun violence and that person leans more to the left side, the conservative side. Therefore, since you lean that way you inevitably lean the same direction on everything. The problem with politics is that it does not let us make up our own mind.

An interesting experiment was carried out by Professor Read Montague PhD, of the Virginia Tech Carilion, developed an experiment to test whether a person is conservative or liberal,

George Lakoff has a very unique was of looking at moral politics. He attempts to dissect the views of the liberal party and the views of the conservative parties in today’s society. Liberals believe that the government should take action to achieve equal opportunity and equality for all. The liberal party claims the duty of the government is to alleviate social problems and to protect civil liberties and human rights. Also, they believe the role of the government should be to guarantee that no one is in need. The need for the government to solve problems is what the liberal party emphasizes on. On the other hand, Conservatives believe in a system made of personal responsibility, limited government, free markets, individual liberty, traditional American values and a strong national defense. A conservative generally believes the role of government should be to provide people the freedom necessary to pursue their own goals but to not get in the way of personal freedom. Conservative policies generally emphasize empowerment of the individual to solve problems on their own. Both sides being so completely opposite raises the question of which of the two views is correct for handling different aspects in society such as taxes, abortion, capital punishment etc? Lakoff’s two models known as the strict father model and the nurturant family model strive to relate the conservative and liberal views to explain how a conservative and liberal would

Dobelstein, Andrew W. Moral Authority, Ideology, And The Future Of American Social Welfare. [N.p.]: Westview Press, 1999. eBook Collection (EBSCOhost). Web. 15 May 2013.

When it comes to politics, American citizens tend to relate to one of two view points. The Liberal view point, and the Conservative view point. These differing views can cause tension, controversy, and can ultimately leave the nation divided regarding social and economic issues. Liberals tend to believe in a larger government that has the ability to make decisions that create equal opportunities for all people. For example, in the ongoing battle over the legalization of same-sex marriage, liberals would be in favor of legislation that would grant the right to marry anyone you please.

The original work of the theory mainly focused on the cultural differences that exhibit in individuals. Subsequent development concentrates on the political ideology and the application of the theory in politics. Scholars argue that moral foundation theory can explain the presence of disparity in opinions concerning political issues like abortion and gay marriages. The three categories of politician observed in theory are the libertarians, conservatives, and progressives. According to research by Iyer et al. (2012, p.42367) libertarians use fairness and liberty foundations only in their reasoning. Conservatives apply all the six foundations equally, while progressives in their argument use the care and impartiality.

The United States was built on the basis that individuals have freedoms that cannot be taken from them. Over the course of the country’s nearly 250-year history, those freedoms have helped shape a political system that encourages independent actions amid a lack of hierarchical constraints. That isn’t to say that there is no authority within the U.S. government, but rather it marks a uniquely undisciplined structure for the country’s two-party system. The current Democratic and Republican system is undisciplined because the parties do not consist of individuals – both politicians and citizens – who always line up directly with the larger organization. Intentional parameters in elections and representation were put in place to allow for this, but unintended developments have also perpetuated the individual autonomy present in the current party system. Both factors contribute to today’s political scene, but the country’s foundation in individual freedoms and a person-over-party system is the biggest reason for the parties’ lack of discipline, while other causes like geography and technology simply fuel the system without creating the undisciplined party system by themselves.

     When this class initially began I was sure, without a doubt I was a conservative. As the semester progressed I discovered the reasons I was considered conservative. The town a person grows up in, financial status, social class, age, gender and the race of the individual have a strong influence on a individuals

Summary: In chapter 1 of Moral Politics talks about that politics is about your own world view. The political division between republican and democrat is based on morality. Morality is based on the type of family backgrounds you have or family model you have such as strict father and nurturing father. And these models explain what “common sense” you have in mind, which you may not even aware of. Chapter two talks about the personal worldview problem for american politics, it will bring the questions that either you're more conservative or liberal. Both sides have their own views. It talks about why do conservatives think that morality should be their agenda. Liberals also have a paradoxical position even they also hold a moral position on

Many Americans know of the dominant Democratic and Republican parties when talking about politics. Few may know of the many diverse parties that have and still do grace American soil. The diversity of political parties may seem confusing to some, but when examined closely, is a prime example of what America stands for, the right to choose. Some may argue that the American political system does not exemplify the Constitutional right to choose despite its many choices in political practices. However, others may argue that the diversity in political choice and practice-despite not used it its full extent- is what America stands for. The diversity in political parties that the United States has allows those who believe they’re not represented,

Conservatism and Liberalism have, over the last century, changed greatly in how they are represented in people’s actions, but have remained consistent in the core principles which underlie their existence and political ideologies. While Conservatism and Liberalism may share a common goal - as expressed by Robin L. West (1984-1985, p. 673), who wrote that both liberal and conservative ideas share a “commitment to the creation of a state in which all members of the community share in the good life” - It seems to me that this is where their ideological similarities end, and that their ideological differences make them fundamentally incompatible as ideologies. To discuss this conclusion, I will first outline the history and core principles of these two ideas, before analyzing their compatibility.

I am far from being certain about how liberal or conservative I am or will be. Growing up I had a very conservative mother and liberal father, so I like to believe that I fall somewhere in the middle. There are concepts from the liberal side, mostly involving equality among individuals that I support. There are also conservative concepts that I side with as well, such as limited government and... However, at my age (21) I am still figuring out which specific values I favor other others. There is a motto out there that insists on not determining your opinions deffinate until at least thirty and I couldn’t agree more. Earlier in the semester our class was asked if young people could handle the responsibility of being a congressman or president. I don’t believe a single person agreed that it would be a good idea to have someone of a young age making decisions for a large sum of people. This is because we are just now coming face to face with things like voting, taxes, and loans. As we acquire more and more knowledge, our views on topics change and eventually this shapes our character and public ideology. With the help of media I and my peers contribute to public opinion with our “posts” being broadcasted daily on issues and current events. I am glad to say that instagram, snapchat and twitter have done an excellent job grabbing the attention of many generations to keep our nation informed. Unfortunately not everything posted is credible or true, but at least it sheds light a