Out of the ideologies that I compared and contrasted I would have to say that I agree more with Liberalism because of the belief that the most important goals should be individual liberty and equality. I think it is extremely important to set limits and obey boundaries but I also believe that we can and we should achieve that without violating people’s individual rights. Liberalism goes against anarchism in a sense that anarchism believes that there should be no government at all. In the United States, "liberalism" is most often used in the sense of social liberalism, which supports some regulation of business and other economic interventionism which they believe to be in the public interest. 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.
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
‘Liberal democracy’ embodies a whole range of doctrines and devices that actually seek to restrain popular rule and prevent government from flexing direct will of majority. The liberal’ features are reflected in a network of internal and external checks on government. For example, guarantee of civil liberty and healthy civil society. The ‘democratic’ features are that it is a system of regular elections, universal suffrage and political equality. In contrast James Madison saw democracy as a defence against majoritarianism, with checks and balances on government, which would make government responsive to competing minorities and safeguards the propertied-few from the property-less masses.
To what extent can the UK be said to be a Liberal Democracy? To answer this question it is probably best to refer back to, to define what is a Liberal Democracy; and Liberal Democracy can be broken down into 2 words; Liberal, Basic freedoms enjoyed by all, such as freedom of speech. And democracy, free and fair elections in which there are 2 or more parties for whom to vote. Under both of these ideas the UK could be classed as a Liberal Democracy; the UK has had freedom of speech since 1986 (under the Education Act) although this could be heavily affected in some ways. As your freedom of speech can be heavily hampered if you do not operate within the law; or you are voicing racist or offensive opinions, or your speech is threatening to “breach the peace” this is too say, what you are saying could be grossly offensive to some groups or individuals.
Are the similarities between modern and classical liberalism greater than their differences? Liberalism is seen as one of the first modern ideologies that helped shape the world into what is it today. Liberalism was fueled by the ideas of the middle-classes whose interests conflicted with the already established powers of the feudal society. As time went on Liberalism became categorized into two different sections; Classical Liberalism, which emerged during the 19th century due to the industrial revolution and Modern Liberalism, which established as industrialization continued to spread around the UK. Even though there are clearly a lot of similarities and differences, many people wonder whether the similarities are greater than the differences.
What is really funny is that most people do not know that modern conservatists are actually classical liberalists and modern liberalists are actually classical conservatists. It is amazing where the government has come as of today. With this in mind one can see how the government itself has changed over time. Modern liberals have brought about programs such as social security, unemployment, medicare, and Medicaid just to name a few. The view that the government should be involved in helping individuals get past the harsh realities of life.
Liberals; 1906-1914 The Liberal Reforms – Points to Note ~ They were an impressive legislative achievement ~ The Liberals were seen to be responding to specifically identified social problems ~ For the first time the state was interfering in matters previously considered to be the duty and responsibility of the individual; the diet and health of children, the standard of living of the aged poor, the levels of wages and hours of adult workers, unemployment. ~ The poor were no longer to be considered as inferior, but were accepted as unfortunate but equal citizens ~ The roles of Asquith, Lloyd George and Churchill need to be noted. Liberal Timeline 1905. December; Balfour’s Govt resigns. 1906.
Before the Liberal Reforms of 1905, poverty was an ever present endemic within the working-class of Britain. The general attitude towards those who suffered from poverty, as defined by ideas of Victorian Liberalism, gave the government little imperative to take any real action against poverty. However, after two major studies on the conditions of England had been conducted by Seebohm Rowntree and Charles Booth, the Liberal government introduced a series reforms aimed at improving the lives of the poor. Naturally there is a degree of importance to these two studies concerning how they led to government awareness of poverty; however a series of events around this era also served as possible catalysts for the introduction of social reforms, for example, the Boer War displayed the impact of poverty on war, which compromised the British concept of imperialism at the time. The main question is to what extent were the social reforms of the Liberal Government between 1905 and 1914 a response to more in depth knowledge about the extent and impact of poverty in British affairs.
How successfully did the Labour government deal with the social problems facing Britain at the end of the Second World War? In 1945 when Clement Attlee brought the Labour Government into power, a welfare state was established that looked after its citizens “from the cradle to the grave.” It was seen as a “safety net” for citizens that would prevent people from falling into poverty. However, government funded benefits were not for everyone and throughout the country there were varying amounts of support given. Only the poorest were likely to receive help from the state. It is believed that the Second World War was actually the cause of many social reforms that were later formed, and the constituting of a welfare state.
Since David Cameron took over the leadership of the Conservative Party in 2005, he carried out a number of reform policies to “modernise” the Conservative Party. Most of his social policies are generally described as an idea of “big society”. Cameron proposed that the Government should allow communities to take more control of services within their own areas, which in other words, more power should be dispersed to local government, authorities and the people. In the meantime, the Liberal Democrats under the leadership of Nick Clegg tends to adopt policies of Liberal and Socialist values. However, what we can see in the coalition agreement made in 2010 is that they agreed to promote a fair and responsible government which closely related to David Cameron’s “Big Society” ideology.