The Differences Of Liberalism, Liberal And Conservative Methods

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).

People’s views on a wide range of issues are influenced or determined by the kind of foundational belief systems they hold. Therefore, the difference in the nature of opinions among individuals or groups of people alludes to the existence of distinct belief systems. In the course of history, the distinction between Liberalism and Conservatism has become more vivid particularly in the political arena where various players have expressed opposing points of view regarding the nation’s future. It is indeed undisputable that the foundational beliefs of Liberalism are diametrically opposed to those of Conservatism. This essay will give a definition of each term and describe how the two oppose each other.

The ideals and the composition of liberals and conservatives are radically different at times, and yet these same beliefs work together to make up the basic framework of American political thought. They both have the same goals for prosperity and yet they have polar opposite ways of achieving them. Ideologically, they are at odds with the size of government and the role that it plays. Some want big government that provides for people, while others elect for a small government that does not interfere with the lives of people. As is expected liberals tend to vote for certain issues that conservatives will disagree with and vice versa. Of course the issues are not random, each side will vote for and against particular kinds of issues.

Both consumption and reinvestment in industry supports job growth, and thus theoretically benefits all classes of people. Democrats tend not to support this theory, and would rather tax the rich, and then used the money to help the poor through social programs like food stamps. Politically, both parties attempt to gain as much support as possible. However, do the differing beliefs of the two parties, they tend to attract separate and often opposing groups of people. Consequently, the Democrats who tend to attract the poor and liberal masses will often shape their policies so that they receive votes of those demographics. Similarly, the Republicans tend to form their policies around the conservative and richer populations so as to keep their support. The two parties tend differ morally as well. The Republicans support a policy of independence and limited government involvement, while the Democrats often maintain a support of social safety nets. These three factors make compromise on the part of the two parties very difficult, especially in regards to taxation. The budget problem discussed in this 1993 article has yet to be completely resolved, and many of the topics discussed in the article are still applicable to today’s debate.

Throughout FDR’s New Deal acts, the role of the government regarding economic affairs had expanded greatly. With a previous laissez faire mindset, the Federal Government had never interfered in the economic situation of the American citizens. However, with the New Deal policies, the National Government had become involved in the competition with private businesses, greatly angering business owners (Document 1). These wealthy owners had viewed that the Government should focus its resources on fixing areas such as the South and not restrict the rights of their employees for the benefit of the government. During this time, the government had provided jobs to those in need and a steady cash flow for the American economy, however it had left the country with an astonishing six billion dollar debt (Document 3). The American nation began to feel as if the government was

There are two major political aspects in our society today, liberals and conservatives. Both of these ideologies share a similar goal in which they both try to find solutions to the society’s issues. But the way liberals and conservatives perceive a problem and try to find solutions is what differentiates them both. Liberals tend to favor a change to promote growth, while conservatives on the other hand stick with traditions and religious values and are not in favor of a change. Although liberals and conservatives share a similar goal, they have opposing perspectives on social, economic and political issues.

Living in the United States some people may forget how closely our political perspectives are to each other relative to those of foreign countries. While there are many political views and stances that an individual might take on any given topic, generally people in the United States fall into one of three categories: liberals, conservatives, and libertarians. Keep in mind that most people will not support all of the ideals of their advocated faction, but they must support the vast majority of them.

This paper will determine and defend whether I am liberal or conservative. I strongly disagree with many of the liberal principles; therefore, this paper will show that I am a conservative.

In the United States we are divided by the left and right side on the political spectrum; even further divided into political parties such as Republicans, on the right, and Democrats, on the left side. These two political parties show philosophical differences through their viewpoints on major topics such as the economy, separation of church and state, abortion, and gun control.

First, a separation of political beliefs and how they coincide with approaching economic reform must be investigated. Republicans tend to believe in fiscal conservatism, that the Federal Government should be more transparent in its actions, and the individual businessman should be able to do for themselves without so heavily relying on government aid. Democrats tend to support a more liberal approach to economics, that the Federal Government should be more active in individual businesses, and that it is the responsibility of the government to ensure that businesses succeed. This extends into taxation, where the Republicans believe that the government should cut spending and allow more proactivity from citizens in taxation, while Democrats argue that the government knows better than the individual, and should, as true representatives of the voters, decide on their behalf which tax burdens and spending should be made. It is clear than benefits can come from both sides of the political spectrum. One example of this is the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. In essence, the EESA was an act that effectively gave $700 billion to the Treasury department and authorization to use those funds to purchase assets, mortgages, and other financially binding contracts from banks and financial institutions which were lowering

In America, there are three major civic stances: conservatism, liberalism, and libertarianism. The liberal stance is the only stance, which offers the foundation to move forward. The following paper will briefly explain, certain aspects of conservatism and libertarianism, and will advance the idea, America must move forward with a more liberal attitude. At heart, this writing will argue a strong government is of the utmost importance in moving this country forward to the future. While other political agendas advocate liberty and freedom, the liberal stance truly offers a realistic approach and method of achieving those aspects of American life.

Since International Relations has been academically studied Realism has been the dominant theory of world politics. The theory’s inability to explain the end of the Cold War, however, brought strength and momentum to the Liberalism theory. Today Realism and Liberalism are the two major paradigms of International Relations. The aforementioned theories focus on the international system and the external factors that can lead to two phenomena - conflict and cooperation. Realism believes that as a result of anarchy and the security dilemma, conflict is inevitable. Liberalism argues that this conflict can be overcome through cooperative activities amongst states and international organizations. This paper will explore as well as compare and contrast the strengths and weaknesses of both theories. It will also debate which of the two theories is more valuable in the

The United States of America was once renowned for and demarcated by the size and successfulness of its middle class. Currently, America faces a shrinking middle class and a new rising oligarchy that is creating the largest wealth disparity in eighty years. Robert B. Reich wrote Saving Capitalism: For the Many, Not the Few, for the sole purpose of exposing the reasons why the wealthy get wealthier and poor get poorer. Reich contends that the free market vs government debate serves as a means of distraction, covering up the real issues of the top one percent reaping economic gains. Reich states in the book that the “free market” is a myth that prevents us from examining the rule changes and questioning who they serve. Reich further states “it is no accident that those with disproportionate influence over these rules, who are the largest beneficiaries of how the rules have been designed and adapted, are also among the most passionate supporters of the “free market” and the most ardent advocates of the relative superiority of the market over the government.”

Compare and contrast Realism and Liberalism as theories used in the study of International Relations

In a world where the drive for power and the will to dominate are held to be fundamental aspects of human nature as the Classical Realists would argue, the necessity for International Organizations cannot be dismissed as some liberalists argue. According to Iriye 2002, IGO’s consists of institutions that come into existence through formal agreements among nations and represent their corresponding governments (Iriye 2002, Pg. 12-14). With that in mind, some liberalists argue that joining international organizations and institutions like the United Nations socializes some leaders so that their motivations are more benign (Dunne 2011, Pg. 103). I am convinced to a certain extent with this idea as I feel that even though classical realists argue that every man has within him the desire to rule or the desire for power (Dunne and Schmidt 2011, Pg. 90). When several leaders come together all from different IR theoretical backgrounds (liberalists, realists, constructivists) each decision they make comes collectively thus not leaving too much room for their individual biases based on their theoretical perspectives to impact important international relations issues "negatively". Although I highly doubt if anything can be done to control the human desire for power accumulation as a classical realist would say, a part of the psyche of man, I do believe the liberalists argument to be of substance.