Jess Seng Mr.Nassida AP History 15 April 2012 Liberal or Conservative Liberals and Conservatives have some really unique qualities to them. Liberals tend to lean more towards Patriot ideals such as the rejection of nobility and organized religion, as well as the right to life, liberty, and property. Conservatives, like the Tories, believed there should be minimal, gradual change in the country and they supported monarchies. FDR and Hoover might not show signs of all these things, but the main ideas of each still linger in today’s political parties. The idea that Hoover was a Conservative and FDR a Liberal are in fact completely correct.
Thatcherites were extremely traditional in their view of the constitution and political system. Modern conservatives now accept that constitutional reform is essential and that the political system needs a good deal of democratic renewal. Although tax cuts are part of the ‘Cameron agenda’ in the long run, the modern party accepts that tax cutting should not be part of a dogmatic ideology, but instead should only be undertaken when the economic conditions are favourable. In general Cameron’s Conservative party is more adaptable and pragmatic, whereas Thatcherism was a more fixed, dogma with fixed principles. The following points could be seen as ways in which the modern Conservative Party retains Thatcherite ideas.
This tells us that he had firm control of the country, and was allowing change in the safest of manors. On the other hand the lack of rebellions may have been due to Northumberland’s ruthless nature during previous rebellions making people afraid of repeating the same outcome. The movement to Protestantism can be attributed more to the Kings wishes, and not represent what Northumberland himself wanted. Northumberland’s social and economic ideas were primarily aiming towards getting the government’s finances back to stability. After Henry VIII’s erratic spending the crown and country were in financial crisis and this systematic and logical approach made by Northumberland towards the crisis shows his ability in this area of ruling.
One negative aspect to his essay would have to be his bias toward conservatives and the rich. He deliberately labels out the rich in many of his examples by pointing out how they claim to be Christian but do not wish to help aid the poor. As for conservatives, he not only points out George W. Bush but refers at times to religion as “conservative religion.” This clearly shows his bias toward them and could be a way for him to associate them with the American Christianity problem. I believe McKibben has a great point on this issue. As American Christians, we always believe that if we do good deeds or help ourselves we go to heaven.
‘How far do the sources suggest that as a conservative Prime Minister Winston Churchill was an effective leader?’ Sources B, D and E both give a clear indication as to whether they suggest Winston Churchill was an effective leader. Some sources support this impression strongly, while others will not. This essay will determine how far sources one, two and three support the statement that former Prime Minister Winston Churchill was indeed, an effective leader, whilst simultaneously accessing the similarities and differences between all three sources. From viewing source B compared to source D and E, there is an evidently clear contrast; this can be inferred from source B, as the overall message presents Churchill as a national symbol from Britain. This can be illustrated as it mentions “supreme performance which we shall never see again from him or anyone else”, suggesting that he was the nations back-bone and he was some- what looked up to by the majority of the British public and also some politicians.
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.
You could easily say that after WWI, many Americans would characterize our country’s state of fear of being undermined. Americans were definitely traditionalists after WWI , who only wanted policies of conformity and intolerance. This led to very conservative policies by our government which would conflict with fresh progressive ides coming off the progressive era. The Scopes trial of 1925 proved intolerance between traditionalists and modernists. Traditionalists obviously wanted things to stay the same and still go with the bible instead of teaching evolution.
It also stressed the political role of the independent landowner and warned against the tendency of political power to encroach upon liberty. A republic demanded a virtuous citizenry and thus a high moral code to ensure continued freedom. The founders thought that luxury, factionalism, and other vices were ever-present dangers, seeds of destruction that lurked in the souls of their fellow citizens and within themselves. (1) Additionally, a man's investment in luxuries signaled to his fellow Americans that he might support the ideas of aristocracy and monarchy instead of republicanism. Therefore republicanism called for thriftiness, simplicity and plainness in all things, be it fashion or food.
Thomas Hobbes author of such works as the ‘Leviathan’ and ‘De Cive’ has also often been regarded as a fundamental thinker in political philosophy and vital in the development of liberal thought. It could be argued however that his ideas in his work can no longer be associated to the liberalism that developed from it. This has led some to argue that Hobbes is not a liberal. In this essay I will consider whether or not Hobbes’ ideas are consistent with the basic ideals of what liberalism has come to encompass. Ideals such as a focus on the individual, individual rights and equality, a social contract based on government by consent, free market, and minimum government intervention and maximum freedom.
Religion as a force for social change There is a constant and great debating concerning the role of religion in society. Whereas some claim that religion acts as a conservative force, suggesting that in fact inhibits change. Others would argue that religion is a major contributor to social change. As expected many sociologists have taken the middle ground and argue that religion is in fact both a conservative force and an initiator of change. The view that religion is a conservative force stems from theories from Functionalists, Marxists and Feminists.