TO WHAT EXTENT WAS THATCHERISM A RADICAL DEPARTURE FROM TRADITIONAL CONSERVATISM To a substantial extent was Thatcherism a radical departure from traditional conservatism, as it combined neo-conservatism and neo-liberalism to form the ‘New Right’ or as it later known as Thatcherism. A traditional Conservative supports authority and patriotism. They are opposed to political or social change and believe in discipline, law and order. They are against constitutional reform; support the monarchy and traditional institutions, such as the House of Lords. 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.
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. The Liberals wanted reform, especially the Radicals. If you compare this to the beliefs of the Conservative party who generally believed in One-nation Conservatism/Toryism. This phrase came to light by the Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli, His conservatism had proposed a society with the social classes intact but with the working class receiving support from the government. Disraeli emphasised the importance of social obligation rather than
Thomas Hobbes and John Locke were two social contract theorists, and natural law theorists, whose views on government were very different. Hobbes believed in the power of the ruler, and he believed that society could not function without the power of the state. Hobbes believed in an absolutist government. Hobbes argued that people were driven by two things: the desire for power and the fear of death at someone else’s hands (Sayre, 2012). He believes that it was the role of the government that would keep these instincts in line.
Patriotism and nationalism give a sense of identity and belonging and helps maintain authority and social order. It prevents social conflict by binding irrational dependent individuals together with a shared set of values, whist transcending the natural rights of the individuals. Lastly conservative nationalism is very defensive in the belief in a special nationality which is being eroded by another. This is different to Liberal nationalism because Liberals believe that nation states can live together without the other being compromised. This is highlighted with UKIP arguing that the EU erodes our principle of independence which links back to the idea of
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. Which also leads to the unbalancing of society and
APUSH Unit 6: Making of Modern America Chapter 37 Application ?s and Key Terms 1. In what ways was the Eisenhower era a time of caution and conservatism and in what ways was it actually a time of economic, social and cultural change? The Eisenhower era was considered a time of caution and conservatism. Eisenhower’s dynamic conservatism called for a liberal attitude towards society but pursed conservative economic and political actions. Also, the fear of the Soviet Union and communism brought along extreme anti-communist like Joseph McCarthy whose accusatory actions indicated the perhaps excessive and unnecessary caution taken by the American people.
I believe that the Conservative party under Cameron haven't adopted many One Nation policies for these reasons; On terms of economic and the deficit the Conservative party seem more right hinting at the thatcher heyday. David Cameron is clearly in favour of rolling back the state, which is also a major point of Thatcherism. A key point is how Cameron feels about education, he favours privatisation of education and has introduced Free Schools and Finally how the Tory's have in reforming the taxation system have rejected some one nation policies. However it could be argued that the Tory party not cutting the NHS fund and International aid funds is adopting one nation policies. In terms of
Hamilton and Jefferson’s plans differed opinionated, economically, and politically. Hamilton and his federalist standpoint were based on a strong central government, Strong national bank and an alliance with Britain. Jefferson however could be considered opposite. The anti-federalists opposed a strong central government and instead focused on a state government. They also opposed a national bank nervous it would give too much power to t he central government.
One train of thought suggests that our government should have limited terms to inject new blood into the government. The other train of thought suggests that experienced politicians know how to move political processes forward and limiting their time in office limits this ability. Our government was established by free thinkers that wanted to break away from the tyrannical structure of England. To ensure that our nation does not fall into the same structure, limitations were placed on government positions but not on the overall length of time an official can hold an office overall other than our presidency. This was established to ensure that our representatives could be renewed as often as needed to reflect the public’s beliefs.
Civil Disobedience Analysis Henry David Thoreau in his essay “Civil Disobedience”, brings up many valid points about the government. The essay might be a little ahead of its time but Henry talks about the injustice of the government and how it wrongfully forces people to do its will. The government has gone passed the line and has been abusing its power. Thoreau expresses in his essay “that government is best which governs least”, and then also goes on to say “that a government is best which governs not at all.” What Thoreau is saying is that the people should be making most of the decisions in society, not a group of men in a position of power. In the American government, and many others alike, there are taxes you must pay.