The Popularization Of The Radical Right Emerges From The

In the book, The Radical and the Republican, was a very interesting, informative read. It made me actually picture myself during that era, and feel how the main people in the book were so passionate about slavery. It focused on the attitudes and the political stand points of Abraham Lincoln, and Frederick Douglass, towards the issue on slavery and the emancipation of slaves. James Oake’s portrayal of both men was extremely positive. He went into detail about their politics and their reasons behind their public positions, regarding slavery. “Their minds worked differently. Though they both hated slavery, they both hated it in different ways and not always for the same reasons. Their

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.

In the past, previous governments have always placed great emphasis upon collectivism, yet, Margaret Thatchers government saw the future as being more individual and made an attempt at reducing/abolishing collectivist thinking. The government wanted people to think more individually. Mrs Thatcher viewed that the collectivist way of thinking would get in the way of the

The Radical and the republican written by James Oakes, is the author’s deep political analyzation between two well-known figures, Abraham Lincoln and Fredrick Douglass. Oakes gives us the first context clue of what Lincoln and Douglass’s relationship will present to be, when they both had opposite approaches on how to abolish slavery permanently in 1850. Douglass sponsored the radical, Garrisonian reform, while Lincoln was an advocate for the overcautious political approach to problems and affairs. During the next 20 years, the 2 figure heads will shift into the same state of mind, with Douglass progressively identifying the necessity for political guiding rather than ideological purity and Lincoln shifting on issues of race and radical emancipation.

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’.

The conservative view is illustrated by then Prime Minister David Cameron, in his 2011 speech on the riots where he disregarded social poverty and unemployment as motive for the 2011 riots. Cameron then stated that: "And this riots were not about poverty", furthermore blaming 'Irresponsibility. Selfishness. Behaving as if your choices have no consequences' (Cameron, 2011 cited in Andrews, 2014, p. 309). This is an example of conservative ideology on riots. Geoff Andrews in his analysis of David Cameron's speech, highlights how Cameron is using words such as irresponsibility and selfishness, and is placing the blame on individuals rather than social inequalities (The Open University, 2016b). Although this was not a new idea. In Reflection of the Revolution in France, published in 1790, Edmund Burke argues that French Revolution was 'motivated by self-interest and disruptive elements' (Burke, 2003 [1790] cited in Andrews, 2014, p. 304). Burke further pinpoints that the riots were induced by 'greed and violence', citing the actions of the 'mob' (Burke, 2003 [1790] cited in Andrews, 2014, p. 305). This reference to the power of the mob is still used today when Ian Kinsella describes the 2011 riots on the BBC in the film 'Newsnight on the 2011 riots' (The Open University, 2016a). Mr Kinsella, a Business Man from Manchester with conservative view, pinpoints the fact that there were no rules and that the disorder was reflected in the power of the mob. In summary, the conservative view of riots stresses the disorder, the irresponsibility, the individual lack of moral, the threat to private

In the excerpt, The Decline of Radicalism, Daniel J. Boorstin abides by his conclusion that there is a clear difference between dissent and disagreement in that one is a problem, whereas the other is the reason for a thriving society. Although Boorstin believes that there is distinction between dissent and disagreement, there is no actual truth in his words, for dissent is simply just an alternative word for disagreement. Dissent and disagreement both have similar meanings; however, one has stronger meaning over the other.

The Radical and the Republican by author James Oakes is an account of two idols that conquest over struggle during a time of great crisis, solidified in a specialist historian’s expertise of various writings on abolitionism, Abraham Lincoln, and the Civil War era. While Oakes is vigilant to dodge the evident dangers of hero-worship, his compassion for both Lincoln and Douglass is evident throughout. Oakes received the Lincoln Prize for his work on this manuscript which was published in 2007.

Hegemony consists of the consent from the subjugated. There is an implementation of a “common sense”-- that things are simply the way they are, just because that is the way they are. Internalized oppression consists of hegemonized minds of the oppressed. In 16th and 17th century Latin America, this may have been seen as the acceptance of the caste system. Not many

The modern-day American Left isn’t as bad as all that, but its ideology about the past is more or less the same. Hence the statement issued Thursday by Seattle Mayor Ed Murray calling for the removal of all “symbols of hate, racism and violence that exist in our city.” Murray is at least consistent, as he includes not just Confederate symbols but also a well-known statue of Vladimir Lenin. These symbols, Murray says, represent “historic injustices,” and “their existence causes pain among those who themselves or whose family members have been impacted by these atrocities.”He is not interested in the history of the statues themselves, the people or events they depict, or “what political affiliation may have been assigned to them in the decades

The exchange of opinions is not always a pleasant experience. Conventionally, such exchanges lead to debates and arguments. Although the side with more supporters may seem morally correct, the minority is the component of change, risking everything to push their ideas through, even if it results in violence. In an excerpt from The Decline of Radicalism, Daniel J. Boorstin emphasizes the dichotomy between dissent and disagreement. According to Boorstin, disagreement expresses a differing opinion that may promote debate, whereas dissenting places the dissenters into the minority. Boorstin also claims that disagreement is beneficial to democracy, while dissension is cancerous. Boorstin’s assertion is heavily flawed; dissenters

Whether through culturally divergent beliefs, tactics, or both, political radicals exist, by definition, on the often negative fringes of societal opinion. While the idealistic goals of most radicals are generally not fully achieved, often giving way to irrelevance in the changing course of material and societal progression or being coopted by more commonly palatable moderates, a rare yet significant few succeed, whether directly or not, in making their demands a reality. Thus, when remembering these successful radicals, it is common practice for the latter societies to patriotically or nostalgically claim them as enlightened moral crusaders, as is seen in the likes of the American revolutionaries and Martin Luther King. It is an interesting phenomenon, however, and one that causes much more nuanced reflection on the past, when a radical whose ends become the

There is a growing sentiment that nationalist and conservative political parties are increasing in popularity and influence around the world. While this may be true to some extent, it is arguably the rise of the “New Right” that is gaining significant momentum in surging popularity and influence at this current time. While it is easy to suggest that nationalist, populist, conservative and even fascism is becoming more mainstream and acceptable in modern society, it is important that the New-Right is differentiated from the current group of “right” leaning politics. This paper will identify and discuss what is the new-right and what makes it different from other forms of the political right, as well as examining the cause and as contributing

In Part I we began this discussion on how the Left is coming out of the authoritarian closet displaying their abject revulsion to the Culture of Liberty. In Part II we will detail the major aspects of their assaults on freedom. While it may sound shocking to many, deep down everyone should realise that the Left is becoming increasingly adverse to Liberty. Aside from wanting the freedom to wage the violence of abortion they have little use for the concept in any other form.

Through Gramsci’s work, he has put forth the foundation of how dominance over people have developed and how power is continuously held. Education and religion are used to influence the culture of the masses. Setting the tone of the dominant class, it controls systems that are developed and deems what is right or wrong. From these concepts, dominant classes are able to develop their own education, economy, political and media systems. Now that the framework of Gramsci’s work has been laid out, it is important to see examples of how hegemony has been used within dominant structures.