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.
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.
‘The modern conservative party is pragmatic not ideological’ discuss (30 marks) Conservatism, like many other political ideologies has different factions within it. Traditional conservatism, especially paternalist conservatism very much favours a pragmatic approach. this is the belief that behaviour should be shaped in accordance with practical circumstances and goals rather than principles, beliefs or ideological objectives, indeed Michael Oakshott specified that true conservatism should avoid adopting any sense of direction However with the introduction of the liberal new right under Thatcher and Keith Joseph, they envisaged the creation of a society of free individuals, with wide access to ownership of property and shares in industry and in which each individual was responsible for his or her own welfare, breaking the tradition of pragmatism within the Conservative party. Traditional conservatives have tended to avoid adopting fixed principles and have opposed political movements based on fixed principles. 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.
Edmund Burke believed that the French Revolution was pointless, and that the revolutionist had risen up against a relatively liberal king and that their actions would result in other kings becoming paranoid and tyrannical. Alexis de Tocqueville saw that democracy in America seemed disorganized, but he also gained a sense that it was a stable and prosperous democracy so that he can gain an insight into how it worked. Tocqueville studies show that democratic America, mostly focuses on the structure of government and the institutions that would help maintain a free America, his focus on individuals however led him to say that individuals were affected by the democratic mentality. Tocqueville’s work finds that the main problems of a democracy are a high portion of power in the legislative
The whole point of America becoming its own sovereign country was Britain’s overbearing control on the colonies. Many early Americans had concerns and feared a government in which, by design, could become too strong. Consequentially, the Democratic – Republican party (later known to historians simply as the Republican Party) was formed with ideas of smaller government and thusly, less control. A semblance of the rivalry between the parties in the United States could be seen in the French Revolution. The Republicans supported the popular forces in the French Revolt and wanted America to assist.
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.
This restriction on the citizens goes against two of the three freedoms (social, economic, political) classical liberalism was founded on. As long as trickle-down economics is in effect the rich will only get richer at the expense of the poor “99%”. The nation needs to change for the benefit of its people, movements can bring change. A prime example of a movement bringing change to its nation is the Women’s suffrage movement. In Canada and the United States women fought for their political rights and freedoms.
The state assumes that it has power over individuals, which a view blights human freedom as was expressed by Proudhon ‘to be governed is to be inspected by creatures who neither have the right nor virtue to do so’. Liberals on the over hand do not view the state in such an pessimistic way, however believe that if the state was so have too much power it could indeed become oppressive and tyrannic thus threatening the sovereign individual: something that liberals heavily endorse. Therefore, liberals argue for a minimum ‘night watchman’ state (Nozick). This essay will argue that the state is not an oppressive body but instead a paternal figure, which serves to protect individuals more than it oppresses them. It can be argued from the anarchist perspective that the state is an oppressive body, which undermines human reason and the capacity for self governance.
Furthermore, proposed indirect taxes on luxury goods such as motor cars and petrol would have affected the Lords as they were among the few rich enough to afford such luxuries. The Lords set up a budget protest league and denounced the budget as “confiscation and robbery”, and breaking with convention overwhelmingly vetoed the budget. A less important reason was that the Lords believed the budget amounted to a social revolution. They were worried by the idea of progressive and redistributive taxation which taxes the rich more heavily. They feared once these principles were established they could be extended to ‘soak the rich’ and even out the unfair distribution of wealth in Edwardian Britain.
As per Gamble, and Macmillan, (2011), Thatcherism is an amalgamation of the values of the custom grip philosophical and Liberal independent market conservatism that speaks to independence. Jessop, (2003) as well recognized Thatcherism as a consolidated ideology of authoritarianism as well as populism however an alternative connection. As per him Thatcherism is characterized as “modify important line of the Conservative Party as sorted out under Thatcher administration. In this definition he make a case, people shouldn’t think about Thatcher as a set of autonomous as well as predictable specialists or neglect proper effect of