In the article Liberal Democracy and the Costs of Consent, Benjamin Barber sufficiently analyzes many liberal thinkers foundations. Barber indicates how vulnerable the classical sense of liberalism is to “modernity’s most devastating political pathology: deracination” (p. 56). Barber additionally recognizes the disadvantages that liberalism has developed since it evolved as a political ideology. Barber effectively expresses at the outset of liberal's ideal development of governing authority, furthermore dismantles the concept of consent becoming the most crucial, restrictive and stabilizing component to the liberal ideology.
Barber notes that Tocquville observed that there is less of a need to consolidate in religions, because anarchic freedoms is where societies are more structured. Yet the liberalism’s virtues state “the wall between church and state, the toleration of conflicting confessions, the acknowledgment of uncertainty, even skepticism, in public thinking could only further undermine the religious principles who's consolations it needed” (p. 54). The collective self government slowly disintegrating in liberalism, however, liberalism has provided a sanitary for individuals and their property. Defending the individual to the end and deracination through the composition of the liberal ideal, it has generated a modern woman and man that “live in an ear after virtue, after God, after nature, an era offering neither comfort nor certainty. Freedom has been won by ruthless severing of ties and an uprooting of human nature from its foundations in the natural, the historical, and the divine” (p. 56). The displacement of human nature that are well established tend to be neglected by individuals who benefit from liberalism for the ...
... middle of paper ...
...cipation into democracy, which contains “constant activity, ceaseless willing, and endless interaction with other participants in quest of common grounds for common living” (p. 64, ¶ 3). Participation's goal is to establish public-mindedness, necessitating participation in public discourse as well as public action in the name of developing public products. Participation maneuvers an individual to speak using the language we, as opposed to I, which is the language of consent. A participating citizen is an individual which has a malleable characteristics, for example the transition from bachelor to spouse to parent. Participatory politics is sensible means of comprehending the association which may be developed between an individual and community, and ways that partnership might be integrated .
Works Cited
Benjamin Barber, Liberal Democracy and the Costs of Consent
Conservative jurisprudence can be understood as an agenda of conserving existing conditions, upholding restricted rights in cases concerning individual, society, and sexual liberty interests in order to retain in its traditional style as similar in the past as possible whereas liberal jurisprudence place itself with a constitutional theory that expand individual rights. By applying these ideologies in the interpretation of the legislation, it can be said that conservatives will interpret the text as a rulebook to be followed strictly as possible and they are able to justify employing the narrowest level of generality in their analyses of
In The Battle for the Mind, which was published in 1980, LaHaye discusses how conservative Christians could “take back America” around a conservative political agenda, and from the standpoint of the field of anthropology, focuses on the struggle with modernity among those who reject it, although LaHaye was unlikely to be thinking in those terms. In this book, LaHaye clearly identifies what he sees as the real enemy of American Christians. He uses the phrase “secular humanism” to describe the enemy, but gives it a new conspiratorial definition. Simply defined, humanism is man’s attempt to solve his problems independently of God. According to LaHaye, humanism seems so credible and logical to the man who does not understand God’s wisdom, that it is adopted readily by the masses. He also believes that today’s wave of crime and violence can be laid right at the door of secular humanism.
Thomas Paine begins his article by first exploring the differences between society and government. He explains that, “society in every state is a blessing, but government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil.” (Frohnen 179) What he means by this is that to have society and community is a privilege, because we as humans are designed to have a need for human interaction, while government on the other hand is only a necessary evil, simply because we as humans are also designed to be inherently evil, and therefore government is a necessary evil to have in order to monitor wrongdoing, or to keep us from our own vices in other words. This emphasizes the Classical Christian Anthropological principle of duality, which is the inner struggle that we as humans have between amor sui, the love of self, and amor dei, the love of God. This struggle springs from the fact that evil is found within man, and we must mak...
Some would say that it presents as an absence of commitment to the influence of citizen’s although it becomes difficult to conceptualize the engagement of citizens as the basis for new or changing policy. Is the average citizen equipped with the knowledge to assess any and all governmental issues equally? Is personal opinion, without grounded bearings of evidence, enough? Can contingencies be placed upon the desire to strengthen citizen participation in public policy-making? The questions are endless, and even yet the Woodford and Preston note “statutory requirements for citizens input ‘would not necessarily mean that citizen engagement is accessible and done particularly well’” (356). The inclusion and weight of citizen input is necessary, although to what degree remains un-established.
In the tomes of history, many philosophers have outlined their visions of a perfect society. Until recently however, few have ventured into the waters of religious tolerance. One such philosopher was John Locke. Writing in the late 17th century, Locke advocated a complete separation between church and state. He argued for an unprecedented tolerance of people of all faiths. Although Locke's views became widely popular throughout Europe and the Americas, they did not meet with unanimous approval. Many earlier philosophers disagreed with Locke. Two such philosophers were Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas disagreed in three key respects: Compulsion, toleration, and authority. Aristotle, on the other hand, disagreed on a more fundamental issue: the goal of politics itself. This essay aims to elucidate Locke's arguments, and then explicate Aristotle and Aquinas' would-be objections to Locke's A Letter Concerning Toleration.
...e, vague topics. The disunity made the Church too unstable to continue possessing political power and so the State became the head of politics, and now we have separation of Church and State, which is renders this time “a secular Western culture” (Powell 6).
Ginsberg, Benjamin. "Political Participation and Voting." We the People. An Introduction to American Politics. Ninth ed. New York: W.W. Norton &, 2013. 293-332. Print.
Somewhere near the heart of much contemporary liberal political theory is the claim that if the state restricts an agent's liberty, its restrictions should have some rationale that is defensible to each of those whose liberty is constrained. Liberals are committed to the "requirement that all aspects of the social order should either be made acceptable or be capable of being made acceptable to every last individual." But there are many kinds of claim which are particularly controversial, many about which we expect reasonable disagreement. Coercive policies should not be justified on the basis of such controversial grounds; rather, they should enjoy public justification. That coercive policy should enjoy public justification implies that political actors are subject to various principles of restraint, that is, that they should restrain themselves from supporting policies solely on the basis of excessively controversial grounds. The point of advocating restraint is to achieve a minimal moral conception, a core morality, which is rationally acceptable to all and which provides the ground rules for political association.
Citizenship is something that largely defines many of us. Our citizenship comes with a community, a group of people and land to which we belong, as well as a sense of pride. Citizens of a community must coexist and cooperate with one another for the community to thrive and prosper. The idea of individuals within a community forming a mutual trust and respect for one another, is a concept Danielle Allen introduces as “political friendship.” Political friendship extends beyond the immediate reaches of one’s community, but to strangers entering one’s own community, or to those of another community with which you seek to enter. It is not friendship in the sense that a bond is formed or that there is deep rooted affection present, but rather one
The pieces on liberalism and conservatism has shown how different the two ideologies mean compared to the labels we see in American politics. The media has made it seems as though conservatives (which in the U.S. is becoming synonymous with Republican) is all against change, while liberals (Democrats) lie in the exact opposite of the spectrum: promoting changes. However, the essays by Locke, Berlin, and Oakeshott showed us how the two ideologies are much deeper than that. It is not just a manual of how to govern a nation, but rather ideals and philosophies. Furthermore, while contemporary politics have created an illusion that there is a clear and definite distinction between liberalism and conservatism, these essays show that they actually do overlap in many ways. In "Two Concepts of Liberty", Berlin categorizes liberty as "positive" and "negative". Positive liberty defines freedom as an individual being able to control his life and decisions in his own interests. On the other hand, in negative liberty, freedom exist when an individual is free from external interference. The major difference between the two concepts of liberty is that positive liberty focuses on the capability of an...
To achieve civic engagement is undertaken in many diverse ways. These are determined by several factors, amongst them the purpose of the civic engagement, the people involved in it, the funds to be involved amongst others. The...
The Modern and Classical strands of liberalism share similar principles – indeed if they did not, it would be wrong to classify them as two strands of the same ideology. It seems the fundamental differences between them rely on the ‘negative’ and ‘positive’ views, which define them and which lead on to the fundamental opposition inherent in liberalism: the role of the state.
Liberalism-derived from the Latin word ‘liber’ which means “free and not enslaved”- is seen as the dominant ideology of the western civilisation. During the European history before the modern...
This paper will begin by highlighting aspects of citizen participation showing the advantages and disadvantages it has on the policy process and discuss how citizen participation in the policy making pro...
“participation is concerned with the organized efforts to increase control over resources and regulative institutions in given social situations of the part of groups and movements of those hitherto excluded from such control”