This is a graded discussion: 20 points possible
LIBERALISM VERSUS SOCIALISM
So who would like to explain how modern liberalism varies from classical liberalism? In addition, in what ways is classical liberalism similar to conservatism today?
Natural, “inalienable” rights versus government-conferred “rights”
Liberalism, or the modern “progressive” movement is very focused on having a stronger governmental role in people’s everyday lives. This is in stark contrast to the classical liberalism which recognizes that humans are free to choose life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and accept the consequences for what their choices are or aren’t on a daily basis. For example, modern liberalism is sometimes accused of enacting “nanny state” laws such as taxes on sugary drinks or junk food to discourage or penalize people from consuming them. Classical liberalism recognizes that choices are made, and consequences result therefrom, so long as those choices are made freely by the individual.
How and when did modern liberalism diverge from the concept of classical liberalism’s natural rights that should be protected and more toward a strong administrative state of government that serves to regulate, rather than protect, those natural rights?
The transformation in liberalism came around the late 19th century. Classic liberalism although effective for running a free market system had created Social inequalities. Large division in social class, the social elite were creating a lot of wealth while the working class was making wages that you would starve on. This economic system described by Adam Smith in his book “The Wealth of Nations” created laissez-faire economics (1776). (Roskin 37) In his book he stated that gold and silver doesn’t make your country wealthy the amount of goods produced is the true wealth. Smith was refuting earlier practices of mercantilism. Smith reasoned that government interference retards growth. If you give a monopoly there is no competition to create new products or get better pricing on current products. This theory believes the market always corrects itself. Promoting prosperity. As stated by Thomas Jefferson “That government is best that governs least.” (Roskin 37)
Modern liberalism stemmed from a free market that did not totally regulate itself. The market was rigged and drifted toward bigness and fewness: Monopoly. (Roskin 37) As class positions were inherited and the wealthy children were educated to maintain social position and workers were not. Thomas Hill Green (1836–1882) rethought liberalism. (Roskin 38) Green reason the point of liberalism was free a free society. The classic liberal placed much value in contracts with little government supervision. Green also created at this time what he called positive freedom. The government needed to step in to guarantee freedom to live at an adequate level. Modern liberalism brought government back into business to protect people from unfair business. They gave the right to form Union’s and create health insurance, equal opportunities for education and unemployment benefits. They also began regulating banking to help control boom and bust cycles.
Classic Liberalism is the foundation to the Conservatism of today. In Europe it is still called classic liberalism. Not to be confused with Classic Conservatism which was a system that led to the French revolution. As this didn’t want to allow any change to their system. IT is important to have a balance of both ideals to achieve the best outcome for the country.
Roskin, Michael G., Robert Cord, James Medeiros, Walter Jones. Political Science: An Introduction, 13th Edition. Pearson Learning Solutions, 10/2013. Vital Book file.
The citation provided is a guideline. Please check each citation for accuracy before use.
Travis,
Thank you for your informative and thought provoking post. I like how you ended your post with emphasis on finding a balance between the Liberal and the Conservative. A mixture of the two ideals allows for compromise (a term virtually unknown in politics today). Often, what is best for society stems from legislation that is a compromise. Today, we see leaders in Washington becoming more polarized in their stance. They allow ideology to fuel their passion and their vote. Ideologues don’t make good politicians and make for even poorer leaders. Maybe this is why we see a crisis in leadership in Washington. Fortunately, I believe the average American embodies beliefs that are both liberal and conservative, which allows us to think logically and not strictly ideologically. Voters are balanced in their beliefs, politicians are unbalanced (sometimes literally)… Research backs this idea of the balanced voter. Treier and Hillygus (2009) state, although political rhetoric today is clearly organized by a single ideological dimension, we find that the belief systems of the mass public remain multidimensional, with many in the electorate holding liberal preferences on one dimension and conservative preferences on another. Legislating solutions that work for the people is rarely an ideological event. Compromise always accomplishes more for society.
Thank You,
Gordon
Reference:
Treier, S & Hillygus, D. (2009). The nature of political ideology in the
contemporary electorate. Public Opinion Quarterly. Retrieved from
https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfp067 (Links to an external site.)
I really enjoyed reading your post. I also feel the average American beliefs are a combination of liberal and conservative. Unfortunately, in most elections it seems to me that there is an extreme liberalist, and an extreme conservative, but no one in between. The beliefs of the American people have remained pretty constant over the last 60-years, and not one ideology has moved to the right or left more than the other. “There has not been a general shift to the left or right because economic conservatism has not changed much…though there have been some interesting and substantial ideological shifts within groups” (Murphy, 2017). When considering social liberalism, social issues such as racial, gender, and sexuality equality has resulted in a general increase in liberalism, which is pretty apparent when considering the changes in de-segregation, gay marriage, marijuana, etc. since the 1950’s. Since 1999, the left and right have both become more socially liberal, mainly among Democrats, but it’s also noticeable in Republicans (Murphy, 2017). I believe that we should stop labeling ourselves as one or the other, and work on what the people of America want and need.
References:
Murphy, Justin. 2017. “Are Americans becoming more conservative or liberal (right or left)?”. http://jmrphy.net/blog/2017/09/04/americans-conservative-liberal-left-right/ (October 17, 2017)
The classic liberalism some say came from Adam Smith in the nineteenth century (Roskin. p.35). The ideology behind classic liberalism was to build up the economies of the nations without government influence. This style of economy is known as laissez-fare. Americans took to this ideology because at the time it worked for them. The free market economy was embraced, but many were worried about conflict. Smith felt that by giving people the freedom without government influence they would peacefully solve these conflicts. In the article, Origins of Classical Liberalism, one learns that classical liberalism had three main points 1. Free market economy 2. Separation of church and state 3. Charitable giving to poor within a civil society but state doesn’t claim responsibility of those less fortunate (dlc.dcccd.edu, 2017). Americas who believed this philosophy later followed a conservatism ideology.
Modern liberalism varies from classical liberalism on having the government in to regulate fairness. It was no longer the strong/wealthy will survive. Modern liberalism is what we have even today. Our text talks about what Thomas Green called “positive freedom” or freedom to live at an adequate level (Roskin. p. 38). The modern liberals work to put into place a system of regulated wages (minimum wage) and hour restrictions. It also worked to allow unions, and improve the education system. Without these regulations the poor had inadequate opportunity to advance and change their social standing. Another ideal they campaigned for was health insurance and unemployment. Funny, concepts we are still fighting and hearing about in today’s world. By regulating the market economy, it helped people to live to their potential regardless of family heritage.
Thanks, A’lon
Source:
Origins of Classical Liberalism (n.d.). (2017). https://dlc.dcccd.edu/usgov1-2/origins-of-classical-liberalism (Links to an external site.)
Basically, classical liberalism is based on a belief in liberty. Even today, one of the clearest statements of this philosophy is found in the Declaration of Independence. In 1776, most people believed that rights came from government. People thought they had only such rights as government elected to give them. But following British philosopher John Locke, Jefferson argued that it’s the other way around. People have rights apart from government, as part of their nature. Further, people can both form governments and dissolve them. The only legitimate purpose of government is to protect these rights.
The 19th century was the century of classical liberalism. Partly for that reason it was also the century of ever-increasing economic and political liberty, relative international peace, relative price stability and unprecedented economic growth. By contrast, the 20th century was the century that rejected classical liberalism. Partly for that reason, it was the century of dictatorship, depression and war. Nearly 265 million people were killed by their own governments (in addition to all the deaths from wars!) in the 20th century – more than in any previous century and possibly more than in all previous centuries combined.
All forms of collectivism in the 20th century rejected the classical liberal notion of rights and all asserted in their own way that need is a claim. For the communists, the needs of the class (proletariat) were a claim against every individual. For the Nazis, the needs of the race were a claim. For fascists (Italian-style) and for architects of the welfare state, the needs of society as a whole were a claim. Since in all these systems the state is the personification of the class, the race, society as a whole, etc., all these ideologies imply that, to one degree or another, individuals have an obligation to live for the state.
Yet, the ideas of liberty survived. Indeed, almost everything that is good about modern liberalism (mainly its defense of civil liberties) comes from classical liberalism. And almost everything that is good about modern conservatism (mainly its defense of economic liberties) also comes from classical liberalism.
Modern Liberalism and Modern Conservatism as Sociologies
One of the difficulties in describing political ideas is that the people who hold them are invariably more varied and complex than the ideas themselves. Take Southern Democrats, for example. For most of the 20th century, right up through the 1960s and even into the 1970s, virtually every Democratic politician in the South was an advocate of segregation and Jim Crow laws. This group included Arkansas Sen. J. William Fulbright (a favorite of the liberal media because of his opposition to the Vietnam War); North Carolina’s Sen. Sam Ervin (an ardent constitutionalist and another liberal favorite because his Senate hearings led to the downfall of Richard Nixon); Lyndon Johnson (who as president changed his public views on race and pushed through the Civil Rights Act of 1964); such economic populists as Louisiana Gov. Huey Long and Alabama Gov. George Wallace; West Virginia Sen. Robert Byrd, one-time Ku Klux Klan member and king of pork on Capitol Hill; and small government types, such as South Carolina’s Sen. Strom Thurmond (who changed his views on race, began hiring black staffers and then switched parties and became a Republican).
This group held the balance of political power in Congress throughout most of the post-World War II period. To even try to use words like “conservative” and “liberal” when describing them is more likely to mislead than to shed any useful light. With that caution, let us attempt a brief summary.
Liberals tend to believe that marijuana consumption should be legal, even for recreational use. Yet they are quite content to have the government deny terminal cancer patients access to experimental drugs. Conservatives tend to hold the opposite opinion.
citations:
Goodman J.C (2017) Classical liberalism vs mordern liberalism and modern conservatism. Goodman institute for public policy
Prior to the 20th century, classical liberalism was the most common political philosophy in the US and is what the Declaration of Independence and Constitution were created on. According to Roskin, Cord, Medeiros, & Jones, (2017, p. 44), the classic liberalism of Adam Smith contributed to the economic growth in the 19th century which resulted in extreme wealth for some and continued despair for others. Smith believed without the supervision of the government the market would regulate the economy and the people should be as free as possible from government regulation and interference. It is this view of liberalism that is believed to have caused the Great Depression. The change of classic liberalism to modern liberalism occurred in the late 19th century because “…it was clear that the free market was not completely self-regulating” (Roskin et al, 2017, p. 46), and a large number of the population was very poor due to the “take-it or leave-it” mentality. Thomas Hill Green saw that liberalism was not working and thought it needed to be revamped and should focus more on the free society with government involvement so long as all markets and people had an equal opportunity to succeed. With this change, government was responsible for protecting the people from the times when economics were unfair and assist in ways to correct the economy. From this modernization, laws for wages and hours were implemented, unemployment and health insurance was offered, bank and finance regulations were set, and all were given an opportunity for education. To fund this change, taxes were raised to the rich, but not the working class, as it was viewed the rich could afford to pay the government for their services more than the working class could. With modern liberalism, it is not the duty of the government to interfere with one’s social or moral choices, but it is to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to live within the same means as others by simple regulations.
Resources:
Roskin, M., Cord, R. L., Medeiros, J. A., & Jones, W. S. (2017). Political Science: An Introduction (14th ed.). Boston: Pearson.
Great Post. I believe the transition from classic to modern liberalism was the understanding that chasing away the government’s power was doing more harm than good (Roskin et. al., 2017). This was understood because those who were in need had no one to support them as no power could intervene in the society as the government could. This concept goes right along with your remarks on the take it or leave it poor community.
Reference
Roskin, M., Cord, R. L., Medeiros, J. A., & Jones, W. S. (2017). Political Science: An Introduction (14th ed.). Boston: Pearson.
Interesting thoughts. I think we do need government intervention to help level the playing field at times. Do you think that some citizens take advantage of this? Do you think that we sometimes have individuals who utilize government subsidies when they are not really qualified? I think that we all need assistance in some form over our lives. But what about the ones who make a living on utilizing government assistance? It is all because of unfair circumstances, or is it that some simply choose not to take the initiative to better themselves? I think that both instances happen all of the time. The difficulty can be in telling the difference, and assisting citizens accordingly. Do you think that the government sometimes oversteps when it comes to assisting the citizens, or do you think they lack?
Scott
Classic liberalism was the standard up until the end of the 19th century. The idea that the market would self regulate was the common view. This view believed that a self regulating market helped to keep monopolies down and drove for competition which made for better prices for goods and services rendered. Thomas Green decided that the classic liberalism philosophy was not working and that the “system” needed to be changed to allow more government involvement as long as everyone had equal chance to succeed. This new view stated that the government is responsible to help the people during times of economic decrease. Lots of changes came with this philosophy. Laws were created related to required wages and hours. Education was offered to all. And new perks such as unemployment and insurance were beginning to be seen.
Roskin, M, Cord, R, Medeiros, J, & Jones, W. (2014). Political Science: An introduction (13th ed). Hoboken, N.J.: Pearson.
~Kyle
Reference
Roskin, M, Cord, R, Medeiros, J, & Jones, W. (2014). Political Science: An introduction (13th ed). Hoboken, N.J.: Pearson
Hi Aesha,
One the current arguments of our day is the overreach of government. Some feel that the government is to involve in the rights and the decisions or everyday life. Some feel that the government is not doing enough to protect certain rights. What’s interesting is that both sides look to the government for assistance in times of need. Is the a middle ground or a balance that can be reach is what politicians are trying to figure out. It will be interesting to watch what will be the outcome.
Robyn
I like the way you worded your post. In my opinion, the government is too involved in certain areas and neglectful in others. There should be a better balance. But as you said, everybody looks to gov’t and expects them figure it out when things aren’t going exactly as planned for them. I believe this is a valid go to because our government should protect us and be there for us but then those same individuals shouldn’t be complaining when they’re there in a more unwanted situation.
I do agree with you and I have actually found that many others do too! According to a survey taken in 2015, there have been many individuals who believe that our government are excelling in some areas and lacking in others. They seem to do well in responding to natural disasters,setting workplace standards,and keeping our Country safe from terrorism. They however seem to lack with helping the poor and elderly, as well at issues with immigration(press.org)
Reference
http://www.people-press.org/2015/11/23/3-views-of-governments-performance-and-role-in-specific-areas/role-and-performance-1/ (Links to an external site.)
Reference:
http://www.goodmaninstitute.org/how-we-think/classical-liberalism-vs-modern-liberalism-and-modern-conservatism/ (Links to an external site.)
In my hometown, we have a city soda tax placed on all sugary and caffeinated beverages sold within city limits at a cost of 1.5 cents per ounce. The purpose of the “soda tax” is to raise money for preschools around the city for books and supplies, not specifically to teacher wages. I have noticed an increase from a 12pack of Diet Coke at $5.99 to $8.99 at local grocery stores. Even with coupons, the old deal of 4/$10 is now 4/$15 at times. The city Mayor is an elected Democrat with obvious governing styles emulating modern liberalism. The backlash from citizens in the city has been widespread, loud and negative, but instead of repealing the tax, the costs remain in effect much to the chagrin of city dwellers everywhere. The most interesting part of it all is not the increased costs and backlash, or so you would think. The changes in employment opportunities that have come and gone with this tax are what I found comical. Those who live within city limits are now traveling to grocery stores outside the city line to purchase soda and juices. This mass exodus has been so overwhelming at many stores inside the city that a few Shop Rite stores have laid off employees while those outside the city are hiring more employees because of the increase in business each day. I suppose this course of action plays more into modern liberalism changes as unemployment stipends and strict taxes came into play around the time modern liberalism was realized.
Roskin, M., Cord, R. L., Medeiros, J. A., & Jones, W. S. (2014). Political science: an introduction (13th ed.). Pearson.
Dana
Informative post on the effects of taxation on soda & juices. Economically bringing less revenue to businesses and producing lay offs. Job cuts is extremely stressful. Many do move on and all due to Modern Liberalism. We have to get involved in change. Many complain about so much and when asked what are you doing to change these course of actions. Most say “Nothing come to think of it”. United we rise divided we fall is something I heard growing up. Perhaps this fits the bill.
Damaris
– Dana
Reference:
Sanger-Katz, A. O. (2016, November 26). As Soda Taxes Gain Wider Acceptance, Your Bottle May Be Next. Retrieved October 31, 2017, from https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/26/well/eat/as-soda-taxes-gain-wider-acceptance-your-bottle-may-be-next.html
Rory
Thank you for your interesting post. I think people’s reactions makes total sense. People don’t like things being pushed on them or being told what is going to happen with their money. By them raising the tax, they are losing money and business. So their idea of making extra money for preschools likely isn’t going as intended.
A similar circumstance happened at the hospital I work at. People at one time were able to gift their PTO time to friends or family who needed it. If someone became injured or had a family emergency and didn’t have PTO built up, someone could gift you their PTO time. Well, they have now changed the policy where you can no longer gift your PTO to a particular person, you gift it to a “pool” and then people sign up to receive it. Since they started doing this the PTO pool is often empty and noone receives anything. People don’t like gifting their PTO to a random pool having no idea who will be benefiting from their hard earned PTO time. Noone wins in this situation.
Christina
Roskin, M., Cord, R. L., Medeiros, J. A., & Jones, W. S. (2014). Political science: an introduction (13th ed.). Pearson.
Angelica
Professor Terwilliger,
Explain how modern liberalism varies from classical liberalism?
Much of classic liberalism can be traced back to the influence of Adam Smith. According to Roskin (2014), Smith’s book, The Wealth of Nations, laid the ground work for a laissez-faire system. Of course, Smith was concerned about government interference in economics. But this system of thought was extrapolated to other areas of life. Classical liberalism was championed by scholars like Thomas Jefferson, who advocated limited government, or what he referred to as maximizing liberty. Jefferson, and others, felt that the individual knew what was best for him or herself. In contrast, we see the roots of modern liberalism in the thought of Alexander Hamilton, who felt that government oversight was necessary to protect the “common good”. Modern liberalism and classical liberalism continue to exist under slightly different monikers. Modern liberalism is embodied in the Democratic Party. Whereas, classic liberalism is embodied in the Republican Party. Fortunately, throughout our country’s history, the two schools of thought have acted as “checks and balances”. Each playing a part in preserving individual liberty and in protecting the common good through regulation.
In what ways is classical liberalism similar to conservatism today?
Classical liberalism and conservatism today share much in common. Although true classic liberalism calls for extremely little in way of government involvement in everyday lives, modern conservatism acknowledges the need for a modicum of government oversight. Classical liberalism and modern conservatism are both concerned with minimizing government oversight. One large difference is that modern conservatism appears to be influenced by the work of Edmund Burke. According to Roskin (2014), Burke argues the necessity for some government oversight, otherwise people may act irrationally. His idea was to “conserve” the good in government, so that it can provide for the common good while still preserving individual rights.
How and when did modern liberalism diverge from the concept of classical liberalism’s natural rights that should be protected and more toward a strong administrative state of government that serves to regulate, rather than protect, those natural rights?
We see the roots of modern liberalism in the philosophies of our founding fathers, like Alexander Hamilton, who, even before the Constitution was ratified, wrote a series of papers, The Federalist Papers, defending the need for a strong federal government. Over the years, amendments have been added to our Constitution to protect the rights and liberties of individuals. As the need to codify right and wrong became more ingrained in our society, so did the appreciation for a strong government to protect those rights. It all comes down to how you view the role of government. Some believe it is the job of the government to regulate rights, others to protect individual freedoms. The good news is that the majority of Americans embody both liberal and conservative ideals (checks and balances within the individual).
Thank You,
Gordon
Reference:
Roskin, M, Cord, R, Medeiros, J, & Jones, W. (2014). Political Science:
An introduction (13th ed). Hoboken, N.J.: Pearson.
Modern liberalism diverged from the concept of classical liberalism around the time of Thomas Hill Green in the mid 1800’s. They did it after Green saw how the people needed help; they needed help that the government could provide. He saw that the government could be a force of protection and aide rather than an infringement on freedom.
Reference:
Chamberlain College of Nursing. (2017). POLI-330N Week 2: Theories and Ideologies [Online lesson]. Downers Grove, IL: DeVry Education Group.
Roskin, M. G., Cord, R. L., Medeiros, J. A., Jones, W. S. (10/2013). Political Science: An Introduction, 13th Edition [VitalSource Bookshelf version]. Retrieved from https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/books/9781269724821
In contrast to this model of low government involvement, socialism calls for the complete control of production by government. This is a concept originated by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, two political philosophers during the 19th century, in their Communist Manifesto. Neither man was a fan of the world in which he was raised, where the industrial revolution was taking off and people were suffering under the harsh working conditions found in pure capitalism. They believed that if they presented a new economic plan that replaced the newly established capitalist principles, they could create a happier world for the individual. This world included the human rights of the liberal, but went even further to ensure an equal distribution of wealth and goods to the masses. Their theory argued for a socialist transition, where the government seizes all the means of production from the masses, as a way of creating the pathway to communism (or a perfect utopia).
Can anyone think of a nation-state that has successfully implemented socialism that didn’t result in human rights abuses or the curtailment of human natural rights?
Christina
Reference:
https://apecsec.org/socialism-pros-and-cons/ (Links to an external site.)
https://greengarageblog.org/10-biggest-pros-and-cons-of-socialism (Links to an external site.)
The only Socialist nation state that I can locate would be Sweden. Although I’m not sure how socialist it still is but the culture allowed them to be successful, without attacking human rights. They are a global champion of equal rights for all. The perfect utopia is a matter of perspective. This goes back to the point of any system can work in the right setting.
Professor,
When thinking about socialist governments, there are many different nation-states are effectively ran without impeding it citizens their natural human rights. One of these countries is Canada. For years the United States has tried to implement many of the ways in which the Canadian government functions. For example, one of the largest controversial issues within the United States is healthcare reform. The Canadian healthcare systems works similar to medicare, but it is for all citizens. (Khazan, 2014) For years the United States has been working to create a type of government that is affordable for all people. If they could create a healthcare bill that accomplished this, it could create better healthcare outcomes for more Americans.
Resource:
O. Khazan (2014) What if america had canada’s healthcare system? The Atlantic.
Universal Healthcare comes with its Pros & Cons. If we want an increase in Government Debt lets add on a single payer health care system which in turn causes an increase in taxes which will drain us even more and the debt will skyrocket even more, In Canada they have high and I mean high taxes to pay and with free care comes longer wait times, cutting of corners (Rations) in the medical advantages of the people and truthfully I would be very concerned if I had to be seen on a budget that is offered free. I look at how bad the Free care is provided especially in Cuba and I am disgusted.
Further the debate on what is good for our country will always have advantages and disadvantages, we just need to be very certain that it is beneficial for the USA people to have.
Damaris
