To what extent is Liberalism the dominant ideology in British politics? The term liberalism is generally associated with ideas such as liberty and equal rights. Associated with it are ideas such as constitutionalism, liberal democracy, free and fair elections and human rights. The UK government incorporates all the key aspects of liberalism in to their own organisation such as the fact that Britain comes from a constitution and the laws and rights of citizens are drawn from it. Liberalism was drawn from the age of enlightenment in which many religious restrictions were broken in order for meritocracy to strive which allowed individuals to strive on their own basis.
The main focus of liberalism is liberty and freedom, there are two types of liberalism classical and new liberalism, this therefore determines the type of liberty they want to achieve. Firstly liberals have a fear that some potential consequences of government such as no legitimate authority, the tendency for power to become concentrated in too few hands and the democratic systems may simply become the tyranny of the majority. Through this fear they offer a solution through the liberal constitution, it defines the right of citizens which could be a safeguard against encroachments by governments, distributes power among different institutions of government to prevent the concentration of power. These are only a few of many. By combining the doctrines of government by consent and constitutionalism, modern liberals have found a way of reconciling effective government with the right and freedoms of both the individual and intermediate groups.
However, the New Right incorporates neo-liberalism, which is a moderation of liberalism that supports free market economics and the minimal role of the state. But it also incorporates neo-conservatism which contrasts from neo-liberalism as it has a strong stance on law and order and the authoritarian state, focusing on nationalism. Firstly the New Right can be said to internally coherent in a political sense and in terms of the compatibility of its goals. All members of the New Right are capable of accepting a strong but minimal state as neo-conservatives believe in an authoritarian strong state in which they prevent excessive freedom due to their view on human nature, but not excessive state so there is not a dependency culture created. The neo liberals also believe that there should be minimal state but in an economic sense, and this is in order to allow capitalism to flourish without excessive restraints and laws imposed on business, and this is to encourage competition in the market to improve efficiency and profit.
In fact Conservatism has often been described as chameleon like, in that it changes its appearance according to the dominant political environment at a given time. In the 19th century, when liberalism was its main opponent, conservatism adopted an organic vision of society, seeing it as a living entity and expecting people to demonstrate a sense of responsibility towards each other. When socialism came to the forefront, conservative changed course and began to emphasise the virtues of free markets and individualism to combat collectivist ideas. Such an adaptable movement cannot be described as ideological in nature. It is common to view conservatives as two strands of government the ‘wets’ and the ‘dry’s’, wets are seen to be more collectivist and believe in a greater role of government, such as planning or intervention, whereas dry’s are more neo-liberal,
Enlightened Despotism, a movement of top-down reform that took place in some 18th-century European states—among them Prussia, Austria, Tuscany, Russia, and Portugal. Historically, the model for most enlightened despots was the powerfully centralizing, absolute monarchy of France’s Louis XIV (reigned 1643-1715). Philosophically, these rulers drew from strands of progressive political thought associated with the Enlightenment. Enlightened despotism was posed as a solution to varieties of social and political backwardness characteristic of early modern societies. Before the nation state became the dominant political form in the 19th century, monarchs often inherited a feudal patchwork of divided and overlapping sovereign entities, for example, provinces, duchies, and free cities, that claimed independent privileges against the power of the monarch.
"Anarchism is closer to liberalism than it is socialism" Discuss. [45] To establish whether anarchism is more similar to either liberalism or socialism we must understand the extent to which these ideologies share core beliefs and values. Anarchism has been defined by a strong belief in anti-statism, derived from a negative principle of authority, as well as a belief in both personal and economic freedom. There is undoubtedly a degree of overlap between these and core liberal and socialist beliefs. Anarchism can, therefore, be said to occupy a middle ground wherein both socialism and liberalism reach their anti-statist conclusions.
THE AMERICAN AND FRENCH REVOLUTION The revolution between the French and Americans were being forced by liberty and equality. Both wanting to obtain freedom by the high ranking monarchs. Differences were mainly visible between these two revolutions, such as the Americans wanting to get some sort of freedom from the taxes and laws that were forced buy Great Britain. Great Britain was a strong and powerful “group”. Whereas the French wanted a revolution to be freed from the monarchs that were implementing things in France.
Governments moreover can be modified or rescinded by the authority which conferred them. Locke maintained, in his Two Treatises of Government published just as it was just after an English revolution (for which Locke was to be something of an apologist), that revolution was not only a right but was often an effective obligation where states denied the operation of civil and natural
The Democratic-Republicans sought to limit federal control and preferred local power as the dominant force. Chiefly, the emergence of the American two-party system arose from strongly opposed political views, but also developed out of experience and a struggle for power. As previously stated, the main reason for the development of the party system in the United States, or any political party for that matter, is a difference in beliefs on how a government should be operated. The Federalists, formed by Alexander Hamilton – Washington’s Treasury Secretary – in 1794, favored federalism with government having the power to control commerce, tax, declare war, and make treaties among other powers.
This essay will argue that while individual rights are important in liberal democracies, they cannot override the need for national security, as without it the liberal democracies themselves would be unable to exist. This will be shown by looking at arguments both for and against the relevance of individual rights when compared to national security. The theories of important liberal thinkers such as Nozick, Dewey, and Mill will be examined in the context of the modern world and shown to be ill equipped to account for modern security threats. The fundamental importance of individual rights to a liberal democracy will also be examined with arguments for and against. These arguments will focus largely on the United States of America, as it has been pivotal to the importance of national security in the modern world.