Margaret Thatcher’s version of liberal conservatism, known as the ‘new right’, swept away the power and influence of the one nation conservatives in the party. She believed that people were naturally competitive, that private enterprise should be encouraged because it rewarded effort. There was a belief that high taxation meant that those who created wealth were penalised so that the less gifted could be subsidised. Her supporters were strong believers in the individual, yet just as the liberals of the Victorian era they believed in a strong state. The new right was radical departure from traditional conservatism because the policies on society are completely different.
Liberalism suggests that government should intervene to “help” but never to “curb freedom.” Liberalism also says that ordinary men and women are entitled to satisfactory lives, but that individual liberties, including the right to prosper from ones efforts, should not be curtailed. The same ambivalence is apparent in the liberal approach to the question of interdependence, both among individuals and among nations. People and polities are interdependent and must show a humane concern for one another, but at the same time the individual person or state has the right to pursue individual interests. The liberals believe that all human beings are capable of reason and rational action, but that they are often caught in difficult situations in real life. I believe that people are born equally and we are all brothers and sisters but when it comes to liberals they believe that people are not born equally but that everyone has an equal opportunity to develop their skills and abilities, whatever they may be.
Modernists believe that there are universal values and tend to be somewhat optimistic whereas postmodernists believe that only local values have importance. Modernists favor organization; postmodernists believe life is chaotic and fragmented. Modernists reflect the values of European or Western thought whereas postmodernists believe in multiculturalism. Modernists are objective; postmodernists are subjective. Modernists believe that life is purposeful; postmodernists believe that life is meaningless or that meaning is purely subjective and relative.
They also believe that people as individuals are capable of thinking logically and rationally in areas of political science and economics, allowing the replacement of old, traditional views by newer and more appropriate views that fit today’s modern way of living. Liberalism supports the free market concept of creating wealth to whoever strives for it rather than placing regulations and limitations on occupations people can hold which no doubt limits their economic a social growth. These basic characteristics of liberalism have led liberals to argue in favor of a limited government, which draws its power from the people. An example of a liberalist government would be during the 1600, particularly the Glorious Revolution of 1688 in Britain. During this time the liberal views
The first main difference between the Liberals and the Conservatives in the mid-1860s is their beliefs. The Liberals led by William Gladstone, were general believers of Gladstonian Liberalism. This was essentially “peace reform and retrenchment”. Gladstone’s own financial policies that were based on balanced budgets, low taxes, and laissez-faire (self-help) were better suited to the developing capitalist society of Britain in the mid-1860s. The Liberals were not very big supporters of the Monarch and wanted the Monarchy out of the political area and it just to be solely the government.
Mill later struggled with the concepts of utilitarianism because it was too unemotional and failed to capture or understand the ‘higher’ pleasure of happiness without pain. Bentham’s theory failed to acknowledge the complexities like emotion. However, Mill did not reject Bentham’s ideas of pleasure fulfillment; he created a more complex version of utilitarianism, yet one that still embraces the most basic premises of Bentham and of his father, James Mill. Mill defines utilitarianism as a theory based on the principle that "actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness." Mill defines happiness as pleasure and the absence of pain.
The paper will examine neo-liberal economics and their ideological beliefs towards welfare. Following the end of the Second World War, the government took on a role which was to form a collaborative state, helping each other by providing a welfare provision to enable equality. The Welfare state would be paramount in providing well-being, and prosperity within the British population. This sought to encourage economical and personal happiness (Taylor, 2007). Neo-liberalism is often referred to as the ‘new right’ and is seen as a mixture of both libertarian and conservative thinking; a movement which does not corner itself in either the left or right categories.
The realist outlook, in my opinion, is more from a “present day” or “short term” point of view. Liberalism, on the other hand, seeks to establish perfection through democracy, believing that this goal is perfectly attainable through progress. This outlook is could be an unwillingness to face harsh realities. Instead of focusing on the here and now, it seems that liberalism would avoid it all together and focus on “what could be”. This long-sightedness, however convenient, seems like it would be extremely dangerous because it would be easier to lose control of the situation at hand.
Proponents of such demands criticise the liberal value of universal dignity on the basis that they ignore the importance of difference and the understanding of the self as a pre-conditioned human need. Liberalism is charged guilty of firstly, “negating identity by forcing people into a homogeneous mold that is untrue to them” and secondly the “supposedly neutral set of difference-blind principles of the politics of equal dignity is in fact a reflection of one hegemonic culture.” (Taylor, 1992, 43; Goldburg, 1994, 84) The issue of this for theorists of the politics of recognition is that it subsequently leads to the non-recognition or misrecognition of certain groups in society, which is ultimately harmful. In other words, the problem is in pursuing a neutral stance. Liberalism is in fact discriminating against difference and supporting a majority position. If recognition is important to help level the playing field and to provide existential worth to one's life, then perhaps, according to Taylor, we need to recognise the difference, not neutralise it, as Liberalism is accused of doing.
Even though there are clearly a lot of similarities and differences, many people wonder whether the similarities are greater than the differences. Firstly, both modern and classical liberals shared the belief that humans are rational creatures, they believe that humans have free will and are responsible for shaping up that they become. They have the belief that humans are rational creatures who are different to everybody else and are not defined by their social positions. Liberals believe that each individual should be the best judge of their own interests and therefore should be governing themselves without forms of interference. Liberals also believe that the growth of human knowledge will enable society to constantly keep on improving with each generation advancing more than the previous one.