More handpicked essays just for you.
Compare and Contrast Liberalism and Conservatism
Compare and Contrast Liberalism and Conservatism
Compare and Contrast Liberalism and Conservatism
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Compare and Contrast Liberalism and Conservatism
In this essay, I posit that despite the harsh clashes between liberalism and republicanism, both elements play important roles in American politics, and their marriage has given birth to a unique America. I will begin by giving brief explanations about liberalism and republicanism, before showing how their dynamic interaction has given rise to American exceptionalism. It is also important to note that the slight emphasis on liberalism more than republicanism that is also evident in the US Constitution.
While Locke’s famous line “in the beginning all the world was America” might appear rather pompous, he clearly explains the causes for the liberal tradition in America. Given the fact that land was bountiful and scarcity was not a problem for
…show more content…
After the government-destroying Revolution that the people believed to be suppressing their liberty, there was a realization that government was still irrefutably necessary for liberty. This resulted in some resurrection of what was initially fought against, in which we see glimpses of republican ideas from the classical world in American political culture, for the founders believed that republican virtue and liberal individualism were compatible and interdependent elements that would create a distinctive America (Vetterli and Bryner, …show more content…
After all, there is much overlap between liberal and republican ideas when we consider their origins. During the Civil War, Lincoln tried to win over the liberal democrats who opposed him, by using their language and values against them by calling himself a Democrat. As the slavery problem was abolished, the republican political party gradually became more liberal as it had to protect the interests of their big business owners, and eventually seeing a switch in orientation of the Federalists and Anti-Federalists. This makes it all the more difficult to truly distinguish between liberal and republican ideas, which have both played irreplaceable roles within American
Within the pages of One United People: The Federalist Papers and the National Idea, author Ed Millican dissects not only The Federalist piece by piece, but scrutinizes numerous works of other authors in regards to the papers written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay. As a result, a strong conclusion asserts that the motives of The Federalist was to create a sturdy nation-state but above all, that American polity is far more complex than pluralism and a free-market economy.
In the book Founding Brothers by Joseph Ellis, the author relates the stories of six crucial historic events that manage to capture the flavor and fervor of the revolutionary generation and its great leaders. While each chapter or story can be read separately and completely understood, they do relate to a broader common theme. One of Ellis' main purposes in writing the book was to illustrate the early stages and tribulations of the American government and its system through his use of well blended stories. The idea that a republican government of this nature was completely unprecedented is emphasized through out the book. Ellis discusses the unique problems that the revolutionary generation experienced as a result of governing under the new concept of a democracy. These problems included- the interpretation of constitutional powers, the regulation of governmental power through checks and balances, the first presidential elections, the surprising emergence of political parties, states rights vs. federal authority, and the issue of slavery in a otherwise free society. Ellis dives even deeper into the subject by exposing the readers to true insight of the major players of the founding generation. The book attempts to capture the ideals of the early revolutionary generation leaders and their conflicting political viewpoints. The personalities of Hamilton, Burr, Adams, Washington, Madison, and Jefferson are presented in great detail. Ellis exposes the reality of the internal and partisan conflict endured by each of these figures in relation to each other. Ellis emphasizes that despite these difficult hurdles, the young American nation survived its early stages because of its great collection of charismatic leaders and their ability to ...
During the period 1800-1817, the Jeffersonians to a great extent compromised their political principles and essentially “out Federalized the Federalists”. While traditional Jeffersonian Republicanism advocated a strict interpretation of the Constitution and an emphasis on an agrarian economic system, the actual policies of Presidents Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were markedly different from their theoretical principles. This obvious compromise of Jeffersonian principles is evident in the Federal government’s assumption of broad-based political powers and institution of capitalistic Hamiltonian economic reforms, both of which stemmed from Jefferson and Madison’s adoption of broad constructionist policies.
After winning the Revolutionary War and sovereign control of their home country from the British, Americans now had to deal with a new authoritative issue: who was to rule at home? In the wake of this massive authoritative usurpation, there were two primary views of how the new American government should function. Whereas part of the nation believed that a strong, central government would be the most beneficial for the preservation of the Union, others saw a Confederation of sovereign state governments as an option more supportive of the liberties American’s fought so hard for in the Revolution. Those in favor of a central government, the Federalists, thought this form of government was necessary to ensure national stability, unity and influence concerning foreign perception. Contrastingly, Anti-Federalists saw this stronger form of government as potentially oppressive and eerily similar to the authority’s tendencies of the British government they had just fought to remove. However, through the final ratification of the Constitution, new laws favoring state’s rights and the election at the turn of the century, one can say that the Anti-Federalist view of America prevails despite making some concessions in an effort to preserve the Union.
In the late1960’s American politics were shifting at a National level with liberalism being less supported as its politics were perceived as flawed, both by people on the left who thought that liberalism was not as effective as more radical political enterprises and by conservatives who believed that liberal politics were ostensibly crippling the American economy.
By seeking a philosophical rationale behind republicanism, the founding fathers intended “… most obviously equality of opportunity, inciting genius to action and opening up careers to men of talent and virtue while at the same time destroying kinship and patronage as sources of leadership.” The big shift from colonialism to republicanism was brought about by revolutionaries who had lost control of their pursuit to end patronage through republicanism which ultimately led to self-ruling
...ood of their society. But to draw the today’s conclusion the lineage of contemporary Liberalism is frequently flawed, regularly contradictory and sometimes tarnished with the blood of the innocent. Nowadays, liberal values propose a type of abundant life the liberty and independence to sin and to set one's own standards in every area of life. But we harvest what we sow and the modern western societies are now reaping the rewards of this faulty "liberty" in unparalleled abortions, numerous teenage pregnancies, high rates of drug abuse, high divorce rates, and high suicide rate that stuns those who come from the very poorest nations. And the other big lie of liberalism is that the "freedom" which it argues to offer is truly not freedom at all but in fact it is enslavement to a morally-destitute path that leads down to the very bottomless pit of misery and desperation.
Many people think that America’s founding fathers were the originators of revolutionary principals that America is based on. They give complete credit to men like Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and Gorge Washington to how America is today. But in reality, earlier enlightenment philosophers came up with the ideas. Enlightenment philosophers, such as John Locke and Baron de Montesquieu, where thinkers that started to judge and doubt the status quo of social structure, religion, and government in the 17th and 18th centuries. At the time these philosopher’s ideas were radical, and even considered senseless. Now because the founding fathers introduced these ideas into America, we see that these ideas work. The founding fathers used an incredible amount of ideas from enlightenment philosophers such as natural rights, separation of power, and consent of the governed.
Modern liberalism and modern conservatism are both political outlooks that involve acceptance or support of the balance of the degree of social equality and social inequality; while they tend to avoid political changes that would result in extreme deviation of society to either side. Modern liberalism and modern conservatism tend not to be as centrist or middle-of-the-road ideologies as they once could be. Ideology is a set of ideas and beliefs that guide the goals, expectations, and actions of a group (Webster’s Dictionary). Individuals who are conservative or liberal tend to have views that align within a political party, whether it be Republican or democratic, but this is not always the case. There are conservative democrats, such as, Jim Costa and Jim Cooper and there are liberal republicans, such as, Nathaniel Banks and George Washington Julian. Another name for conservative democrats would be blue dog democrats while the nickname for liberal republicans is the Rockefeller republicans. These two ideologies tend to be more of the centrist ideologies. Modern liberals tend to be members of the Democratic Party because they support a wide range of welfare programs and government support of the public sector and tighter corporate regulations (PP Modern Liberalism). U.S. Conservatism evolved from classical liberalism, which makes them similar, yet there is many differences between modern conservatism and modern liberalism. There are principles and tenets that govern each ideology. A tenant is a belief or idea that is held as being true from a group (Webster’s Dictionary). In understanding both ideologies, it is imperative to have an understanding of classical liberalism. Classical liberalism was built on ideas from the seventeenth ...
While conservatism does not have a monolithic party line, their task is to successfully overcome the 19th century bifurcation. This would effectively be done in a fruitful dialogue so as not to perpetuate it by way of failing to understand the complexity and the breadth of the American heritage (Meyer, 1996). The greatest service that contemporary conservatism has offered to the US is the refocused attention on the mere fact thought to be understandable by the founders. According to Will (1964), “Society is a crucible of character formation.” People are termed as political and social beings that are completed through associations. While the state can damage the association, a large or big government would do an even bigger damage. Conservatism drives the current political debates considering that it has sensed and is striving to act on the reality that people are biological facts. However, the citizens that are entitled to self-government tend to be social artifacts. Conservatives hardly subscribe but appear hostile to the possibility of the human nature having any history (Will, 1964). The traditional conservatives have had the tendency of insisting that the crystallization of a conservative outlook in the modern society requires only that we proceed with the principles of the individuals who considered themselves conservatives in 19th century oversimplifies while at the same time confuses the problem (Meyer, 1996
Throughout history Democrats and Republicans are known to have a difference of opinions when it comes to their parties and ideas. However, there are similarities between the parties. There are many fundamental differences between the parties it can be quite difficult to find things that are agreed upon between parties. We all have the right to vote and many young people do not know the difference between the Republican party and Democrat party. The difference between the two is that Republicans are known as conservatives and Democrats are known as liberals.
The rise of conservative ideology during the mid-20th century has been the biggest political development in modern American history. The Republican party was dead and buried in the aftermath of the Great Depression and the rise of liberal governance under Roosevelt and Johnson – for nearly fifty years the Democrats controlled the House and it appeared that their stranglehold over the government would never end. However, over several decades, the Republicans and the conservative movement slowly gathered strength until finally breaking the Democratic majority and taking the mantle as the permanent party in power. Conservatism, by its very nature, must stand in opposition to differing forms of governance. As William F. Buckley said in his introduction to the National Review, conservatism “stands athwart history, yelling Stop, at a time when no one is inclined to do so, or to have much patience with those who so urge it.” (Buckley 1) But, as Samuel Huntington points out in Conservatism as an Ideology, the conservatives of his era appeared uncertain as to what they were trying to conserve – he argues that often these conservatives wish to return to an antiquated past rather than defending the Constitution.
The past few years have seen an unprecedented wave of far-right conservatism sweep through Washington, and in turn, the country. This is a wave that borders on extremism and it is a wave that cannot and must not be underestimated in respect to its potential to do harm to many of the country’s citizens and residents. Though this dangerous brand of far-right conservatism does not have its roots in Donald Trump, he has allowed and encouraged its supporters’ actions. One of the most noticeable changes within the country since Trump’s inauguration in January of 2017 has been the dramatic increase in anti-semitic hate crimes. Since January, over 50 JCCs (Jewish community centers) have received bomb threats, and at least three Jewish cemeteries were vandalized. Though Trump is not solely to
Liberalism has always been characterized by many as an investment on the individual, an investment on their individual and fundamental rights. Presently, a vast majority of the population brings up words such as “softness” and “spinelessness” when liberalism is spoken of. Evidently, their most avid critics come in the form of Marxists and their counterpart, the illiberal leftists. Allow me to explain, illiberal leftists are perceived by many to be the distorted version of liberal leftists; it is the result of their detachment from the tolerance that characterizes liberals, and their restrictive manners on freedom of speech and behavior. These illiberal leftists are arguably the largest group of detractors from liberalism, they, as have some others, found a plethora of defects about liberals. Although liberals and liberalism have come in for harsh criticism by many, the illiberal left is not far behind, even though they are harsh critics of liberals.
Modern day society is engrossed in a battle for protection of individual rights and freedoms from infringement by any person, be it the government or fellow citizens. Liberalism offers a solution to this by advocating for the protection of personal freedom. As a concept and ideology in political science, liberalism is a doctrine that defines the motivation and efforts made towards the protection of the aforementioned individual freedom. In the current society, the greatest feature of liberalism is the protection of individual liberty from intrusion or violation by a government. The activities of the government have, therefore, become the core point of focus. In liberalism, advocacy for personal freedom may translate to three ideal situations, based on the role that a government plays in a person’s life. These are no role, a limited role or a relatively large role. The three make up liberalism’s rule of thumb. (Van de Haar 1). Political theorists have