Social Democrats And Neo Liberals

The further development of industrialisation led to social and economic inequality. This led to a revision of classical liberal ideas to prevent the spread of ignorance and poverty. It is suggested that modern liberals have betrayed classical liberal ideas as they embrace collectivism and diverge from classical liberalism on issues such as freedom. However, it can be argued that modern liberals have simply built on classical liberal ideas such as its commitment to the individual.

One has to try as much as possible to try to preserve the rest of humankind from any evil that can happen to the other people. Neo-liberalism emphasizes that all being are equal and independent and no man is supposed to harm each other’s innocent life, health or possession as it recognizes all being as workmanship of on omnipotent (God). Moreover, no man that has the liberty to destroy himself and man should not have more than other hence encourage sharing such thing as power. For example, although people punish each other for transgressions, the offender has the right to seek forgiveness from the offended and can assist the offended to recover from the offended to make satisfaction for the harm he or she suffered. On the other hand, classic liberalism encourages the practice of individualism. For example, the essential feature of individualism from the elements provided by Christianity and the philosophy of classical antiquity was first completely developed during the Renaissance and from that time, it has grown and spread into what is today recognized as Western European civilization. Classic liberalism emphasizes on freedom and liberty hence encouraging men to develop their own individual gifts and bents. Whenever, small one man’s sphere is, he is encouraged to view and observe himself as supreme (Friedrich 7-14).

Typically, liberalism is categorised into two separate components; classical liberalism, which was fashioned during the 19th century as a result of the industrial revolution, and the more recent Modern Liberalism which emerged as industrialisation continued within the UK. Although both divisions of Liberalism unavoidably overlap in attitudes and approaches regarding the theory behind the ideology, I believe, fundamentally, that clear tensions between these aspects of Liberalism are more evident when analysing this ideology.

The fact that, in the United Kingdom, we have multiple political parties, with a variety of view points and policies, is exemplary of the fact that political parties enhance democracy. The existence of various political parties gives the public voting options, and provides them with a choice of who governs their country, which is arguably a democratic approach, and encourages public participation. The idea that the public are not only voting for the party and its leaders, but also its policies show that they have an influence in how the country is run. For example the Conservative party (under David Cameron) believes in traditional institutions and values, protecting the rights and interests of property owners, and support the idea that the wealthy do have a responsibility to improve the conditions of the disadvantaged. However modern Labour (under Ed Miliband), emphasises that education is the main driver of social justice and social mobility, agrees that there should generally greater stress on environmental protection, and the party now favors more active state

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:

Freedom and citizenship are the foundational concepts of politics. However, there are disagreements among political scientists and philosophers as to how they define those concepts. This article attempts to present a short overview of the idea of freedom and citizenship from a modern political perspective. I focus on the way Thomas Jefferson and Hannah Arendt interpret those concepts and how their interpretations converse with one another.

Typically Liberalism can be categorized into two different strands, Classical and Modern (yet some thinkers advocate a third strand that is referred to as Neo-Liberalism), each characterized by their differing and to some extent unavoidably overlapping attitudes regarding the theory behind the ideology and how it should be put into practice. Prior to examining how these relate to one another and before making any comparisons, it is important to give a definition, as best as possible, of Liberalism as a concept.

This was the party slogan for the political culture in George Orwell’s novel, 1984; a stark, depressing world where “Big Brother” is watching you at all times. The political culture of the Untied States, thankfully, is a much more democratic and freeing environment. “Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness...” is what we live by, not “Freedom is slavery.” The political culture of the United States is made up of two main concepts: liberty and equality. These will be discussed in this paper.

The New Right has significantly revised the relationship between conservatism and tradition, however. The New Right attempts to fuse economic libertarianism with state and social authoritarianism. As such, it is a blend of radical, reactionary and traditional features. Its radicalism is evident in its robust efforts to dismantle or ‘roll back’ interventionist government and liberal social values. This radicalism is clearest in relation to the liberal New Right, which draws on rational theories and abstract principles, and so dismisses tradition. New Right radicalism is nevertheless reactionary in that both the liberal and conservative New Right hark back to a 19th century ‘golden age’ of supposed economic prosperity and moral fortitude. However, the conservative New Right also makes an appeal to tradition, particularly through its emphasis on so-called ‘traditional values’.

Classical liberalism allow an individual to use primary social value of liberty in the political culture that extent until liberties of the others disturbed. Classical liberal ideas often form the basis for opposition to the use of government to attain social and personal objectives. They stress reliance on private the free market to determine the best outcomes rather than the private initiatives [1].

Social democracy is a political ideology which embraces both socialism and liberalism (Belgrave, Cheyne, & O’Brien, 2008). It is not a tightly sealed set of political values and beliefs, but a set of several. Social democracy contrasts with the ideology of neo-liberalism by identifying market failure rather than government intervention (Eichbaum & Shaw, 2008); this is why it stands for a balance between

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.

Rather than eradicate capitalism, socialism exists within it. Moreover, democratic socialism is characterised through the balance and compromise between free market capitalism and the Governmental state (Bernstein 1993: 142, Heywood 2012:128, Anderson 1985: 10). Marx considered socialism as a class movement, which is what subsequently played out in the political realm, once universal suffrage had been achieved. For previously powerless people it was the only peaceful way to be heard: “Electoral politics constitutes the mechanism through which anyone can as a citizen express claims to goods and services.” (Przeworski 1985:11).

Capitalists and supporters of democracy believe that socialism and modern liberalism are detrimental to economic progress. Because prices of goods and wage of workers is controlled directly by the government, privately-owned companies and institutions cannot flourish under a socialist or modern liberalist government. People who value freedom of speech and human rights likewise oppose socialism and modern liberalism, because they believe that such ideologies limit a citizen’s right to choose which products to buy, what job to take, what religious belief to espouse. Even though modern liberalism is more subtle and suave than socialism, it still ends up giving too much power to the government in the guise of economic, political, and social security.

Liberalism is a political philosophy that is founded on the ideas of liberty and equality and controls how a society functions. Since liberalism is expressed as a political ideology, it helps dictate how a nation can achieve its national security, its stable economy and the extent of control a government should possess. The perspective of the source illustrates how government intervention is needed during the threat of national security. Although, during times that national security is not being threatened, the collective society should have the freedom to break from the unnecessary government control. A philosopher such as Rousseau would have agreed with the position of the source as it gave an option of security to the people - but also gave them the choice to break the contract if they believed their rights were being violated. While a philosopher such as Hobbes would have disagreed with the source on the terms that he believed in a monarchy and believed that people needed government control at all times. Furthermore, as liberalism provides people their freedoms but also allows a certain extent of government control, the source should be taken to an full extent on the grounds that government control should only be emplaced considering national security, government control, and economic stability - which is shown through the internment of Japanese-Canadians, the New Deal, and the Patriotic Act.