Category: Conservatism

The proposals for secondary education following world war two in Britain intended to eliminate the inequalities that were evident in the education system. Although there had been an increase in the number of free places at grammar schools in England and Wales between 1913 and 1937, the majority of parents would have to decline these offers due to other expenses involved in excepting a place. Throughout this essay, I will discuss conservatism in Britain’s education system and what led to the circular 10/65 I will begin with the establishment of the 1944 Education Act also known as The Butler Act, and how it made way for a Tripartite education system. Continuing by exploring some of the reorganizations of the education system, the responsibility of the Local Education Authorities (LEA) is to submit plans for the type of school they deemed appropriate for the area. Furthermore, viewing various policies and reports that were introduced such as the Newsom report that influenced the education system in Britain, finally, discussing the introduction of the Circular 10/65 and its intention to abolish the separation of pupils at age 11, the attention it attracted and the fact that it was short-lived with the victory of the Conservative party in 1970 and the establishment of the Circular 10/70.

The first post-war election in 1945, saw the labor government elected, this shaped a government led by the then Prime Minister Clement Attlee, there was an indication of a prevalent aspiration for change. The 1942 Beveridge Report subsequently summarized a model of the welfare state, embracing proposals to transform the current school system into a more self-governing model, the report had attracted extensive support throughout the country, and the emerging Labour government had planned to bring about the Beveridge reforms, such as his recognition of the giant of Ignorance as an indication of contemporary Britain transpiring from the turmoil and divides of the world war (Galvani, 2010). McCulloch (1998) suggests that the organization of widespread secondary education was not revolutionary modernism, but chartered endorsements of the 1938 Spens Report, although it had been a time-honored aspiration of the Labour Party since the 1920s. As a result, the specified requirements of the 1944 Education Act involved the establishment of a transparent division between primary and secondary education, abolishing the elementary sector, for children aged 5 to 14, and introducing secondary education for all for children aged 11 to 15, and eradicating tuition fees for children attending publicly financed schools, furthermore, determining independent funding to local authorities and to other school divisions. However, the act failed to stipulate the types of schools that were to be made available. Alternatively, Local Education Authorities (LEAs) were provided with the assignment of creating development strategies suitable for their local area (Galvani,2010). Following the passing of the 1944 Act, children were to continue in primary education until age 11, at which point they would transition into secondary education.

This separation instigated copious amounts of trepidation and debate throughout the planning of the specifications of the Act. A prominent delegate of the planning commission, Griffiths G. Williams, the head of the secondary branch of education, asserted that secondary education ought to begin at age 11, while members of the planning commission presented the judgment that at age 11 children were too young to make fundamental decisions about their future career, suggesting that alternatively, children should start secondary school at 13 (Galvani,2010) The majority of LEAs decided that secondary education would be structured within a tripartite system which included secondary grammar, secondary technical and secondary modern schools these decisions were mainly influenced by the proposals laid out in the 1938 Spens report and 1943 White Paper, Educational Reconstruction, also known as the Norwood Report (Rubinstein and Simon, 1973) (McCulloch, 1998). All schools were to adhere to a curriculum. The Tripartite system was centered around selection, with pupils of age 10 or 11 having to endure an examination known as the 11 plus, the results of which would determine the type of school they would attend (Alcock, 2008).

The tripartite system was well developed by the end of the decade for the majority of LEA although some experimented with various differing measures (Galvani,2010) The education minister Ellen Wilkinson and members of the Labour Party in general, maintained their support of the tripartite system of education, regardless of total confidence in multilateral schools, and at an annual conference in 1942 It was indicated that a system constructed around selection brought Wilkinson’s socialist principles into dispute, however, Wilkinson responded by abolishing maintained school fees, confirming that Tripartism assured that selection was on merit rather than fees (Rubinstein and Simon, 1973). However, the establishment of the tripartite system did not develop without hostility, numerous LEAs abandoned the proposal suggested by Norwood and instead proposed substitute schools including multilateral or bipartite (McCulloch, 1998). Furthermore, The Trades Unions had contended prior to the 1944 Act that social class separation would be preserved by the separation of schooling alongside the division of labor (Galvani,2010). Crooks (2002) suggests that it is a widespread fallacy, that the 1944 Education Act permitted a tripartite secondary school system.

Alternatively suggesting that the Act itself did not state how secondary schools should be controlled or structured. In actual fact, this was the task presented to the LEAs, whereby, they had to determine and report to the Ministry of Education in a development proposal. Furthermore, successive Ministry directions to LEAs hardly recognized the prospect that an LEA could possibly establish comprehensive schools during its administrative process. comprehensive schools were assumed to be feasibly suitable in densely-populated areas or as cautious thought-out experiments. However, between 1946 and 1949 the Ministry of Education approved the joining of pre- war Senior and Central School buildings in order to establish eight temporary ‘experimental’ London comprehensive schools. Although in 1948, the Minister for Education, George Tomlinson, refused to obligate himself to a profound position when his fellow Labour MPs, Ralph Morley, and Alice Bacon, insisted that comprehensive schools be positively supported (Crook,2103). In 1949 in Holyhead on the Welsh island of Anglesey the first genuine British comprehensive school was founded and was done so without disagreement or debate, which led to widespread positivity regarding the future of comprehensive schooling. However, in the urban districts, the dominant Ministry opinion was that a comprehensive school required the capacity to house between 1500 and 2000 students in one destination if they intended to maintain feasible municipal examination classes.

Further suggesting where comprehensives were too small, they would be unable to obtain an appropriate sixth form, resulting in students being disadvantaged with regard to having the prospect of accessing university (Crook,2013). However, discussions concerning the potential of comprehensive education continued throughout the period of 1945 – 1951, although Wilkinson and Tomlinson did not express any consideration to comprehensive education, but alternatively dedicated their backing of the new secondary modern schools for non-academic students as a suitable alternative to grammar schools. Nevertheless, debates surrounding comprehensive education continued in the wider perspectives of the internal Labour Party struggles between the supporters of Aneurin Bevan, and the Labour politician Hugh Gaitskell.

The Bevanites were dedicated to promoting socialist change in order to develop the previous achievements of the Labour government, whilst Gaitskell advised attention and self-control. Education policy was starting to become entwined in this broader struggle (McCulloch, 2016). Gradually, throughout their years of political opposition from 1951 to 1964, the Labour Party made explicit its outlook on comprehensive schools, and In 1953, Labour’s National Executive Committee produced a robust policy document ‘Challenge to Britain’, within which they consigned themselves to abolishing the 11-plus examination and the various kinds of schools in secondary education, instead supporting the idea that all pupils between ages 11-15 would benefit from sharing both the academic and societal advantages offered by one secondary school (McCulloch, 2016). Then in 1958 Hugh Gaitskell, specified in the pamphlet ‘Learning to Live’ his intent of requesting that local authorities present plans to eliminate the separation of pupils into different kinds of schools at the age of 11 years, further, stating that the Local Authorities would have the autonomy to decide how and when it was to be organized (Crook, 2013). In March 1956 the Minister for Education, David Eccles, requested that the CACE investigate the education of pupils aged 15-18, in relation to the varying social and industrial essentials of the population, and the requirements of individual citizens. Paying specific attention to the stability at different stages of education for those aged between 15-18, also observing the interrelationships at the different stages (Crowther, 1959).

The report known as the Crowther report was submitted to the then Minister of Education Geoffrey Lloyd in 1959, The Crowther report, considered the later years of education, making various recommendations including, increasing the age a child would leave school, and the implementation of examinations for 16-year olds (Alcock,2008). However, by the 1960s, Conservative ministers were conscious of the increasing levels of discontent with the 11 plus, and consequently in 1964, under the direction of its Secretary of State for Education, Edward Boyle, the Conservative government established Legislation to abolish the compulsory obligation for school transfer at age 11 years. The 1964 legislation paved the way for local authorities aspiring to reorganize secondary education, including the establishment of the middle school for children aged 9 to 13. This was viewed as a desirable option as it could be accomplished with a limited amount of disturbance, and without the need to close schools, also allowing for the reality that it permitted grammar schools to preserve their academic courses and sixth forms (Sumner,2010).

Numerous Local Authorities used this to their advantage and began to establish some form of comprehensive education, however, this was typically in particular areas and on a limited scale. Nonetheless, the number of comprehensive schools in England and Wales more than doubled between 1960 and 1965. However, this still only accounted for less than ten percent of the secondary population. Additionally, Boyle was the first Education Secretary who indicated that he had no intentions of obstructing future plans for local comprehensive education systems, instead, he ushered his support for individual comprehensive schools that had been articulated by his predecessors (Sumner,2010). In the 1964 General Election, the Labour Government won and Harold Wilson became Prime Minister, on taking office Wilson made changes to the positions of his Shadow ministers of Education and Housing. Crossman was to be repositioned in Housing, whilst, Michael Stewart, was transferred to the Department of Education accompanied by Reg Prentice as his junior Minister, and Lord Bowden as Minister of State in charge of higher education. There were fundamental motives behind Wilson’s decisions. During the 1950’s Stewart had been recognized as the extremely articulate education spokesman on Labour’s benches. Furthermore, as a former teacher, he was strongly associated with the most influential teaching union, the NUT, and he had constantly displayed his support for comprehensive schools (Dean,1998) However, there was the mounting realization that the Newsom Report had been out dominated by promotion of Robbins’ proposals.

The Newsom Report was received by Edward Boyle in August 1963, although it was his predecessor David Eccles in March 1961 who requested that The Central Advisory Council for Education (CACE) “advise him on the education of pupils aged 13-16 of average and less than average ability” (Newsom,1963, P.v). the fundamental idea being that all children receive an equal educational opportunity in order for them to develop their skills and capabilities (Newsom, 1963). Whereas the Robbins report was concerned with the development of university higher education provisions (Alcock et al., 2008). Furthermore, in 1963, Sir Edward Boyle requested that CACE reflect on all the attributes and features of primary education and the transition of pupils aged 11 to secondary education. However, by the time the report was submitted in 1966 The Labour government where in power, and it was Crosland who was to receive the report (Plowden, 1967). The Plowden reports main focus was primary schools, specifically, the trepidations that some children were not performing as well as other students. The report maintained that this was a direct result of social and cultural factors (Alcock,2008). Following his changes, Harold Wilson’s Labour government requested that local education authorities produce plans to restructure their schools on the basis of a comprehensive system, and in 1965 the circular 10/65 was passed, with the intention to abolish selection at eleven plus and to end the separation of pupils in secondary education (DES,1965). The circular 10/65 declared that it was, “conscious of the need to raise educational standards at all levels, and regretting that the realization of this objective is impeded by the separation of children into different types of secondary schools, notes with approval the efforts of local authorities to reorganize secondary education on comprehensive lines which will preserve all that is valuable in grammar school education for those children who now receive it and make it available to more children; recognizes that the method and timing of such reorganization should vary to meet local needs; and believes that the time is now ripe for a declaration of national policy”(DES,1965, P1).

Circular 10/65 was aware of the requirement to encourage fairness in the education system and emphasized the significance of making those from less educated households aware of such information, although, it failed to openly reference equality, the circular continued to affirm that the Government trusted that the division of pupils into various kinds of secondary schools hindered the nurturing of educational standards and that in order for all pupils to have access to the type of education that had previously only been accessible through grammar school they should be restructured on the basis of comprehensive education (Sumner,2010). Substantial guidance was made available to Local Authorities with regards to instigating the Circular, although a significant number of paradigms were proposed that would denote fulfillment of the Government’s policy. These included the conventional comprehensive schools whereby pupils aged 11-18 go all the way through, alternatively was the ‘two-tier’ school system which entailed pupils moving from junior comprehensive to senior comprehensive at age 13 or 14. The Circular advised against focusing on external examinations, declaring that this could have a detrimental impact on the curriculum (Sumer, 2010). The circular 10/65 attracted a significant amount of attention leading to the publication of various newspaper articles, The Times published an article on the 8th February 1965 entitled ‘government firm on schools but no hasty change’ with an article reported on Crosland’s speaking in Manchester about his future intentions for education, suggesting that establishing a widespread comprehensive secondary education would take a substantial amount of time, further stating how Crosland had asserted that, unlike the Conservative government, the Labour government were determined not to allow education to become a sufferer of an economic crisis (1965b).

In another Times article published on the 8th of April 1965, Sir Edward stated that he was not opposed to comprehensive schools, in fact, that in some circumstances comprehensive schools would be more appropriate. However, he did assert that he was against the despairing urgency to abolish good schools including secondary moderns and grammar schools (1965a). a further article issued by The New Stateman on the 10th September 1965, described how comprehensives had played a fundamental role in indicating the misconceptions of selection stating the headline ‘11 plus “failure “goes to university’ was becoming too widespread to be classed as important in local papers, additionally how some comprehensives testified that around fifty percent of their A Level achievements and university entrants had developed from the lesser educated (Jones, 1965). Although the circular 10/65 had become an official paradigm, the policies produced by the conservative government were starting to expose the bigotries and the personal partialities of Margaret Thatcher. The Conservative party went on to win the general election in 1970, the then Prime minister Edward Heath and the Secretary of state for Education and Science Margaret Thatcher, issued the circular 10/70 which affirmed that from then on, there was no longer going to be a uniformed system inflicted centrally, instead Local Authorities had the freedom to decide and inform the type of schools they trusted to be most appropriated (Simon,1992). In July 1970, there was an article in the weekly news entitled ‘Labour Cant v Commonsense in Education’ the article described how the conservative manifesto made it explicit that the conservatives were extremely against the Labour government’s efforts to force Local Authorities to restructure on a totally comprehensive basis, Margaret Thatcher instead suggested that comprehensive and grammar schools could both be established and that were comprehensives may be suitable in one area, a grammar school may be more appropriate in another area (1970) It is evident through the literature cited in this essay that the circular 10/65 which was introduced on the 12th July 1965, had transpired from long-standing debates over comprehensive education, although it exposed the desires and support, it also revealed the questions and uncertainties that had surrounded the restructuring of education over the previous 25 years or more. It could be suggested that Circular 10/65 was a direct result of the 1944 Education Act, formed around the recommendations outlined in the Act and developed in agreement with its prerequisites. The Labour government was confident that the separation of pupils at age 11 needed to be abolished, in order for pupils to have equal access to the education previously only available through grammar schools, making a comprehensive education system the most appropriate. However conservative governments continued to disagree instead favoring a system of selection and grammar school education, consequently, in t 1970 the Conservative government issued the Circular 10/70 which meant that there would no longer be a uniform system, giving Local Authorities the autonomy to decide the type of school they deemed the most appropriate for their area.

This essay aims to describe the main features of conservatism with reference to the historical and philosophical origins, the core value, and the perspectives on the welfare state and social policy. Conservatives are hard to define but they tend to want less control over an individual, and like the status quo to be managed. They also prefer good social order and security even if it is at the cost of freedom and equality.

The origins of conservatism come from the latter half of the 18th century. There were many types of conservatism during this time. However, Britain and the United States were careful and cautious and ultimately formed a more successful ideology. Conservatives during the late 19th century welcomed the cause of social reform under social duty and the charge if paternalism. Although, the Industrial Revolution developed a new social class, and subsequently their power grew which presented many new threats to the landed classes. Conservatism understood that their ideas had become diluted and that they needed to expand away from their cynical approach. Benjamin Disraeli developed a new theory called neo-feudalism in an attempt to put the class system back into the old feudal way of operating the country. Disraeli characterized the working class as producers, and the capitalist class were the money makers and were unable to rule due to self-interests. The upper class had to legitimize their role. Traditional conservatism backed Disraeli’s theory till the 1960s.

Edward Burke, an English conservatism, posits that the ruling class should play an essential role in politics. He argued this because firstly, the ruling class has both time and money and does not work classifying there is an aspect of self-interest. Secondly, they obtained a wealth of knowledge from their past ancestors who ruled. Lastly, the ruling class was always characterized as superior people. As the 19th century finished, the conservative party was filled with business interests but also gained huge approval from the working thanks to Peel’s idea of ‘one nation’. In Britain, the middle class was classified as conservatism during the 20th century. However, socialism would soon create problems. By the 1970’s, a new variant of conservatism was produced: New Right Conservatism.

The core values of conservatism involve:

• Individualism – People accept responsibility for their actions.
• Organic society – Everyone with a position of power has an obligation to help the community.
• Human nature – Regarded humans as imperfect and unchangeable.
• Order and Hierarchy – Crucial for the continuation of a structured society.
• Tradition – Associated with the ethics and morals passed through generations.
• Inequality – Although this term is associated negatively. It is essential for the continuation of society.
• Private property – Conservatism put emphasis on the significance of owning property.
• Pragmatism – Disagrees with the idea that conservatism is against change. Understands the requirement for a functioning link between governed and government. (Revisionworld, 2007).

Conservatism is also applied when describing an individual’s personality traits.

Conservatism has different perspectives on the welfare state and social policy than other political ideologies like liberalism and radicalism. First of all, conservatives do not emphasize social class and socio-economic division because it would accelerate social cohesion and the common interests then conflict. Also, conservatism dissent the promotion of the secular state because they favor a society built on a belief system that is based on a formal religion as a guiding moral framework. Conservatism also disagrees with facilitating excessive wealth because it is potentially socially destructive. They know the significance of having wealth and the effort it took to earn them. Conservatism perspectives toward the welfare state involve advocating social welfare but only to the deserving poor. They emphasized that there should be compulsory workfare for the able-bodied of the community. Conservatism advocated for charitable organizations to deliver services in a bid to keep to principles of subsidiarity and to eliminate the state from infringing activities. Conservatism reluctantly complies with minimum wage. However, conservatives disagree with unemployment payments that are next to wage levels because it underpins work ethic. Subsequently, it would promote not working. They recognize income tax as essential in terms of the duty and responsibility of citizens. All citizens are obliged to contribute in the form of tax to the society they live in. Conservatives detest positive discrimination and quotas for specific groups of workers. It is too interventionist and symbolizes ‘big government’. Lastly, conservatives concur with the idea of business subsidies and bail-outs. They want to keep economic stability and active markets.

In conclusion, the ideology of conservatism is very interesting and extensive. This assignment examined conservatism as an ideology and the features of conservatism with reference to the historical and philosophical origins, core values, and perspectives held by conservatism regarding the welfare state and social policy.

Many years ago, I was taught about the Bill of Rights in school. Among the ten amendments was the right to bear arms just in case the people of America needed to fight back. Growing up in a no-gun household, I never understood the need to have guns, let alone AKs and shotguns. However, the following research will aim to open a new perspective to the idea of lessening gun control in the states. Although pro-gun enthusiasts are generally painted as trigger-happy, gun-ho individuals, their feelings stem further than just their love for guns. Most pro-gun ideas derive from early America’s strong sense of individualism and community, and the right to a firearm is a way for them to protect themselves and others in order to create a safer environment.

My high school teaching of early America helped me conclude it was built on revolution and guns to gain its freedom from Great Britain. Even after their emancipation, Americans continued to keep their guns as a safeguard in case the government was to again behave in a way that infringed on their rights. In Celinska’s article about the connection of guns to individualism and collectivism, she stated that “research suggests that majority of firearms are owned for recreational sports” such as hunting. Furthermore, they were owned for defensive purposes because citizens didn’t believe the government could protect them well enough (Celinska, 232-233). Through using guns for aspects of daily life, it becomes part of American culture and, thus, collectivism.

Similarly, as time has passed, the American lifestyle and goals have changed into a more capitalist and individualistic structure. This means that people are no longer following a more community, group-think type of living; they have opted to live in a way that benefits them. As a result, gun ownership becomes more of a personal choice that represents a person’s distinctive lifestyle. To support this, the author suggested that those who are anti-gun control could actually “seek to protect their own self-interest, that of their families, and the interests of those with whom they closely affiliate, associate, or identify” (Celinska, 233). Consequently, to insist on taking their firearms is similar to taking part in someone’s culture. Though understanding the situations that make people call for gun restrictions, such as shootings or other tragedies, true gun enthusiasts understand that they are not those criminals. Owning a gun doesn’t mean they support what is going on, but it also doesn’t mean that their right to the Second Amendment should be taken.

Also disturbed by the mass tragedies involving guns, conservative pro-gun groups have coined the term ‘good guy with a gun’ in order to prove that armed citizens could help prevent more casualties. The expression implies that if more citizens had firearms of their own, mass shooters would be stopped before they could terrorize a group of people. Using this thinking, in a room of 10 innocent citizens and one shooter, two citizens having a gun would be much better than none of them having weapons to protect themselves. David French, a writer from the National Review, agrees that armed citizens are more helpful than opposers may believe, even if the defender does not hit the shooter. In fact, he pointed out that FBI data states individuals “can stop a shooting even if [they] miss, or even if [they] just hold a person at gunpoint” (French, 1). People who take pride in owning firearms generally take care of their weapons and understand their use. They are not likely to spray and pray, which would put more innocent lives at risk. With that knowledge of guns, they could be beneficial to officers since they generally can only get to the scene within one to two minutes of the initial shooting. In most cases, a victim has already been shot within that short amount of time.

There are many right-wing politicians who have made their stance on gun control very open and loud for all of the country to hear. Though they generally support their reasoning with a fiery speech against their liberal opposers, some have provided a deeper insight into why they feel a need for firearms. In a blog post about Mark Levin, the radio show host, Michael Morris quotes the conservative on his stance about Trump’s constant mentioning of the National Rifle Association (NRA). Levin passionately asserts that the gun control issue has nothing to do with the NRA, age restrictions, or mental illness. To him, gun control is about understanding what rights people have through the Bill of Rights and ‘individual liberty’. Individualism is now part of American culture. Levin argues that people who decide to take the step and become murderers are not a specific age or look, so there is no way to create a policy or law to permanently stop them. Even deeming mass shooters as people with mental illnesses doesn’t solve the issue, since not everyone with mental issues is likely to be a murderer. Instead of chasing after arguments that we cannot solve, it would make more sense to just focus on the rights of the guns themselves before thinking about the people.

In conclusion, gun ownership is an aspect of American culture that has been instilled for decades. Citizens have developed a sense of individualism that calls for deference for their right to their Second Amendment. In addition, gun enthusiasts hate mass shooters just as much as pro-gun restriction activists, and they aim to prove there could be many ‘good guys with a gun’ in those types of situations.

Gun control is a divisive issue that has sparked intense debates within the political landscape. The perspectives of liberals and conservatives on this matter diverge significantly, reflecting their fundamental beliefs and values. This essay delves into the differences between liberals and conservatives regarding gun control, highlighting their respective arguments, stances, and underlying ideologies.

Thesis Statement

The debate over gun control reveals contrasting viewpoints between liberals, who advocate for stricter regulations to enhance public safety, and conservatives, who emphasize the importance of preserving Second Amendment rights and individual freedoms.

Liberals

Liberals generally advocate for stricter gun control measures to address the issue of gun violence. They emphasize the need to safeguard public safety by limiting access to firearms. Liberals argue that regulations, such as background checks, waiting periods, and bans on assault weapons, are essential to prevent mass shootings and reduce gun-related crime. They believe that curbing access to firearms will lead to a safer society and protect individuals from potential harm.

Conservatives

Conservatives, on the other hand, staunchly support Second Amendment rights and the individual’s right to bear arms. They argue that gun ownership is a fundamental aspect of personal liberty and protection. Conservatives contend that restricting access to firearms infringes upon citizens’ rights and creates a scenario where law-abiding individuals are vulnerable to criminals who do not adhere to gun laws. They assert that the focus should be on enforcing existing laws and addressing mental health issues rather than limiting constitutional rights.

Ideological Differences

The differing viewpoints on gun control mirror broader ideological differences between liberals and conservatives. Liberals tend to prioritize collective safety and believe that government intervention is necessary to mitigate potential risks. They view gun control measures as a means to reduce societal harm and prioritize the greater good. In contrast, conservatives prioritize individual liberties and distrust excessive government involvement. They view the right to bear arms as a safeguard against tyranny and emphasize personal responsibility over government regulation.

Public Safety vs. Individual Freedoms

The core of the gun control debate lies in the balance between public safety and individual freedoms. Liberals argue that stricter regulations can prevent gun-related tragedies and protect innocent lives. They point to examples of countries with comprehensive gun control laws that have lower rates of gun violence. Conservatives, while acknowledging the need for safety, emphasize that infringing on Second Amendment rights may have unintended consequences and potentially leave law-abiding citizens defenseless against threats.

Prevention vs. Response

Liberals tend to focus on prevention, advocating for measures that could potentially prevent gun-related incidents from occurring in the first place. Stricter background checks and assault weapon bans are examples of their prevention-oriented approach. Conservatives, while not opposed to preventing gun violence, place greater emphasis on responding to threats effectively. They believe that the solution lies in addressing mental health issues and enforcing existing laws.

Conclusion: Recognizing the Spectrum

In conclusion, the debate over gun control highlights the contrasting perspectives between liberals and conservatives. Liberals advocate for stricter regulations to enhance public safety and prevent gun-related incidents, while conservatives prioritize the preservation of Second Amendment rights and individual freedoms. The issue reflects broader ideological differences and underscores the tension between collective safety and personal liberties. As the conversation continues, understanding these divergent viewpoints is crucial for finding common ground and crafting effective gun control policies that address societal concerns while respecting constitutional rights.

A cultural, social, and political worldview known as conservatism aims to maintain and support established societal structures and practices. The principles of conservatism might change depending on the society and civilization in which it manifests. Opposing the notion of complete or dramatic change defines conservatism as an ideology in the first place, not the idea of opposition to change per use or any commitment to maintaining all existing institutions. The revival changed the concept and created new citizens-centered approaches to conservatism.

Conservatism began from nationalism, and similarly to most political ideologies in the United States, conservatives supported enduring cultural and traditional values (Wilson, 41). The representatives were the royalty and nobility’s supporters, who thought there should be royal and noble privileges. They argued that society should undergo progressive reform in the wake of the French Revolution. Conservatives supported tradition, culture, and nationally distinct views and practices and believed that these elements influenced societal developments on the outside—the fundamental tenet of conservatism emphasized tradition, existing institutions, and established procedures. Conservatives’ ability to adapt when change is required and separated from their willingness to embrace any change or support it enthusiastically. Either radical reactionary or progressive mindsets do not capture the conservative perspective on social development. When making any changes to, say, the foundations of a monarch’s power, the breadth of people’s involvement in legislative matters, or the ability of private property to be taxed to fund public goods.

Several factors led to the rebirth of conservatism in American society at the end of the last century. They include the rise of taxes, which many citizens considered too high regarding salaries and prices. The second issue considers the restrictions placed by the Federal Government on the states. And finally, the emergence of rugged individualism is based on the idea that people should look for themselves and not rely on the Federal Government to provide assistance or control any point of life.

To cub the above factors that led to conservatism, they support minimal taxes, open markets, privatization, deregulation, and a reduction in government expenditure and debt. Social conservatives believe that secularism and moral relativism challenge traditional social norms based on family and religion. Conservatism defends free market economic policy, promotes American nationalism, strict law and order policies, and social conservatism regarding the family as a home and a center of identity. It also tries to maintain national interests.

The revival of the ideology in the United States was not isolated and followed aspects of the traditional concept. However, researchers claim that the conservative movement has lost touch with the fundamental conventional conservatism modesty; rather than serving as a balance point on liberal overreach, it now prioritizes the concept of destructive. The conservatives address the rights that the government must secure for the citizens, and the ideals should constantly work to preserve and expand the freedom of the American people. Additionally, the limited government can be scaled back if individual liberty is promoted. Conservatives adhere to the founding principles of the US. They believe that a limited Governmental role is more effective and less corrupt since it is operated exclusively with the consent of the governed.

In conclusion, conservatism is not a new concept in the American system, and initially, it appeared among a limited circle of people. The revival was provoked by several issues and governmental policies toward the different social classes. Consequently, the contemporary phenomenon is closely connected with the ideas of destructive in consideration of the limited governmental power and the active role of citizens, meaning that the former must rely on the letter to avoid the destruction of the whole system.

Work Cited

Wilson, Francis. The Case for Conservatism. Routledge, 2017.

Conservatives in the United States of America have made a great contribution to the politics since the end of the Second World War. Gregory Schneider identified the following features belonging to conservatives, “respect for tradition, republicanism support, Christian religion and the upholding of the rule of law” (Schneider 19).

There are social conservatives and liberal conservatives as well. Conservatives have a firm admiration for the founding fathers of the nation. Most conservatives are for the status quo and against any form of revolutionary change. It has been noted that the American Revolution disrupted all the forms of conservative links and regimes (Schneider 19).

Hartz attempted to provide a practical explanation for the liberal tradition of America by relating it to the history of the Europeans. This relation, according to him, primarily relied on the absence of feudalism in the United States of America and secondarily on critical influence of European ideas, particularly those of John Locke.

Hartz revealed a great deal about the current state of the liberal American tradition and customs that America could give rise to the concept of liberal society. He saw a liberal tradition as a central one to the American experience home and abroad.

Hartz’s liberal tradition in America has continued to influence how Americans think about their history and traditions. The conservatives and the radicals have embraced Hartz’s analysis to support their devotion to defense of property rights and individualism. The liberal tradition in the United States of America is a historical document that is inadequate in analysis because it is too static and flat.

Hartz dwelt much on the matters of psychology and democracy and ignored the roles played by ethnicity, race, religion and democracy in the history of America. Hartz’s thesis was considered a single-factor analysis characterized by two dimensions, namely: ,the presence of a liberal idea and the absence of feudalism (Kloppenberg 460).

Hartz’s thesis argued that since the US had been found, it remained inherently liberal. This thesis was the subject of various criticism, debate and controversies. Some scholars argued that this thesis was unable to explain the politics of exclusion, but it captured the real political identity of America.

In his argument, Hartz posited that American politics was shaped by distinct social and political theoriesy that were devoid of feudalism and monolithic creed emanating from history. The thesis provided explanations for various social and political outcomes in the US like the failure of socialism, the rise and fall of McCarthyism and the absence of European-like welfare states (Stears 2).

Hartz was a consensus theorist because of his argument that American ideas were influenced by the colonialists who were motivated by political principles.

Consensus theorists’ argument was centered on Lockean liberalism, which argued that the founding generation of Americans had been motivated by the primacy of the government’s role in protecting them and their natural rights. Hartz agreed to the argument that Lockean ideas dominated the American political thoughts.

Hartz found that political conflict with the colonialists as unproductive since it was not motivated by direct engagement with the core principles of their competitors, and he concluded that as long as the liberals did not renounce capitalism, and the conservatives did not renounce equality, the alternatives that they articulated would collapse (Teles and Glenn 351).

The relationship between the ideas of Crick and Hartz was that Crick followed Hartz’ ideas in the absence of class and ideological conflict. Fundamental agreement on values was an important symptom and cause of the principle agreement on the primary political values that re-linked with liberalism hegemony.

Both scholars were in the same vein of argument since they both argued that American conservatism was romantic though politically ineffective, and hence it was considered to be un-American. According to Crick, the development of conservatism was considered to be one of the great post war developments in the United States of America. He posited that conservatism was a respectable social and political philosophy.

On American conservatism, Crick argued that there was a confusion between conservatism and traditionalism; this confusion was only realized in the United States of America, and he attributed it to conservatives like Russell Kirk (Aughey, Greta and Riches 5). Other prominent conservatives in the United States of America were Strauss, Hallowell, Voeglin and Hayek.

Voeglin who provided answers to philosophical questions while Strauss preferred to be considered an academic conservative who could enhance the ability of students to critically think. Hayek utilized the label Old Whig to define individual freedom against the policies that were supported by the liberals. Though Hallowell referred to himself as a conservative, he did not want to be associated with the movement (Schneider 6).

Federalist can rely on a document considered as a product of minority views, which were reconciled. It treated the constitution as a document that forced all the people to be under law. Carey argued that conservatism provided no support for establishing the individual rights that were advocated by the modern liberals.

The federalists reasoned deliberations and recognized higher sources of law founded on the power of the legislature. I agree that the federalist document is not considered a conservative one because it formed a basis for a democratic government, and the conservatives do not subscribe to the tenets of democracy.

To the conservatives, the federalism did not embody the character of American because the last is to guarantee the citizens their rights and offer modalities of power distribution.

Unlike Cray who argued that the federalist document was the principal document that dictated and directed how the society was to be governed, Hartz argued that the constitution did not guarantee minority rights in any liberal society, but it was the dynamic of ideas. Federalists were committed to preservation of civil liberties, and they upheld the traditional opinions that had been adjusted to the American nature.

In his argument, William Buckley was considered as a galvanizing force of the American conservative movement. Kendall in his turn defined classification as one of the conservative thinkers. Kendall argued that there should have been decentralization of power in the society; conservatives agreed that power had to be dispersed from the centre.

He argued that power was not to be concentrated in hands of the federal government, but the local government was to be granted a high degree of autonomy. That implied that the amount of power wielded by the government was to be circumscribed and shared by many people.

Conservatism in the USA had not manifested itself until 1790 when there was a revival of public consciousness and increase in the number of people opposing the forces of conservatism. In the United States, the American Revolution was considered to be stir up by the conservatives.

Edmund Burke is meant to be the founder of conservatism. President Reagan utilized his views and was among the presidents who solidified their political support by supporting the conservatives and demanding for their wishes. Reagan was considered to be the conservative standard of economic, foreign and social policies.

This gave place to the coining of the historical phrase Reagan era. Russell Kirk was the most vocal opponent to liberalism. He argued that both modern and classical liberalism theories focused a lot of attention on financial matters and consequently ended up failing to meet the human desires. Kirk was against libertarian ideas because he considered them a threat to conservatism (Schneider 4).

The views of Kirk and Weaver, who stood in the ranks of the traditional conservatives, were considered moral transcendence and a form of natural law that was advocated by minority of conservatives in the United States of America. Traditional and neoconservative opinions varied based on ultimate principles.

Meyer was considered as one of the prominent conservatism fusionists who thought that neo- and paleo-conservative positions could be reconciled. This was because according to him, they shared common assumptions, particularly about human dignity and the inherent importance of an individual and the significance of virtue, order and value which he argued were much geared towards placing a limitation to the power of the state.

The two opinions from the two schools of thought were on collision regarding the choice between stressing freedom over the need for order and justice in the society. The effort to unify the two positions was made difficult by the emergence of mass men who lacked strong communal organizations and families (Schneider 4).

Neo-conservatives supported an assertive and interventionist foreign policy as long as its intention was to promote democracy and American values abroad. Dick Cheney, Robert Kagan and Bill Kristol were among the prominent neo-conservatives and directly linked to foreign policies of the Bush era. Paleo-conservatism developed during the 1980s as a reaction to neo-conservatism.

It placed a lot of emphasis on tradition, particularly religious or rather Christian tradition and the importance of the society and family. Its key proponents like Huntington Samuel argued that a society that was multiethnic or multiracial was not stable. Paleo-conservative supporters were isolationists and wary of foreign influence (Farmer 3).

The variation in American conservatism was brought to prominence during the rule of President George Bush. It was considered to be a perspective or a persuasion and not a movement. Neo-conservatism denoted the reaction against the champions of village welfare, idealist foreign policies, affirmative action and radical liberationist values.

Irving Kristol was the godfather of the neo-conservatism and argued that patriotism was health and natural sentiment that was to be encouraged and promoted in America because the USA was a home to immigrants, thus that issue was to be the greatest sentiment. Neo-conservatives were wary of international organizations that would cause the creation of the world government and to them, it would result in tyranny.

They argued that Americans were to be ready to defend any democratic nation that would be attacked by an undemocratic one. Traditional conservatives, on the other hand, claimed that that perspective by neo-conservatives was imprudent while the laissez-faire considered that argument as militarism.

Laissez-faire applied the standards of natural law to the social issues while the libertarianism utilized laissez-faire in all the issues. Traditional conservatives considered freedom distorted and burdensome. They argued that the authority of the ancestral institutions was to be protected.

Furthermore, according to them, the rule of law was to be employed in the protection of liberties and fostering rational choices; individuals were to be considered and taken care of in the social context.

During the period of the Cold War, the conservatives were kept intact because of the anti-communism sentiments; this was because they were championing in the Cold War since they were against any intrusion or humiliation of the United States of America (Deutsch and Fishman 11).

American conservatism affirmed that God and capitalism were inherent values in the American society just as social stability and economic ferment. Religion resonated with the values of the Protestant ethics in the culture of America, which considered the pursuit for wealth sanctioned and inspired.

The tension between the Christian societies made the conservatives affirm that it was a process of symbolic differentiation that characterized the American colonial experience.

During the period of the 1950s, conservatives placed a lot of emphasis on the roots of Judeo-Christian; in this regard, they considered the projection of a man as a consuming and producing animal. During his rule, Ronald Reagan stressed Judeo-Christian values as the much-needed ingredients in fighting communism,

Belief in the superiority of Western Judeo-Christian traditions led conservatives to downplay the aspirations of Third World and to denigrate the value of foreign aid. Since the 1990s, the phrase “Judeo-Christian” has been primarily used by conservatives.

Evangelicals had been politicized in the 1920s, battling to impose prohibition and to stop the teaching of evolution in the schools (as in the Scopes Trial of 1925), but had largely been political. The emergence of the “religious right” as a political force and part of the conservative coalition dates from the 1970s and was a response to secularization and Supreme Court rulings on school prayers. (Deutsch and Fishman 11)

I agree with Abbott’s argument. This is because all the arguments on liberalism and tendencies concerning liberal views were analyzed in a paradoxical and confused state. Political theorists reflected the difficulty of defining liberalism in a manner that its relevance was not to be established or inadequate.

Philosophers only speculated on such issues as religion, economics, family and foreign policy and other changes in liberal ideas, but none of the theorists sought to define the purpose and the direction of American liberalism, and only through the arguments and the opinions of Hartz, the American liberalism can be renewed, and the entire history of America can be explained through symbols and cadences of Hartz (Abbott and Levy 3).

Conclusion

Conservatives are interested in the perpetuation of the status quo. Though they believe that change is possible, they strongly argue that it should happen gradually. They are opposed to radical changes in the society and view radicalism as disorderly in the society.

According to them, change should be supported by the existing customs and institutions. Conservatives are skeptical about any society that is devoid of order and justice or the one that lacks constraints; conservatives clash with liberals on matters of expansion of human rights and the usefulness of societal institutions.

Works Cited

Abbott, Philip, and Levy Michael. The Liberal Future in America: Essays in Renewal. Westport, NY: Greenwood Press, 1985. Print.

Aughey, Arthur, Greta Jones, and Riches William. Conservatism in Britain and America. Rutherford, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1992. Print.

Deutsch, Kenneth, and Fishman Ethan. The Dilemmas of American Conservatism. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 2010. Print.

Farmer, Brian. American Conservatism: History, Theory and Practice. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Press, 2005. Print.

Kloppenberg, James. “In Retrospect: Louis Hartz’s: The Liberal Tradition in America.” Reviews in American History 29.3 (2001): 460-478. Print.

Schneider, Gregory. Conservatism in America since 1930: A Reader. New York, NY: New York Univ. Press, 2003. Print.

Stears, Marc. “The liberal tradition revisited.” Wisconsin University, n.d. Web.

Teles, Steven, and Glenn Brian. Conservatism and American Political Development. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2009. Print.

The politics of Alberta resembles the parliamentary democracy. The capital is Edmonton which is the residence of governor, premier, the cabinet, and legislature. However, the second greatest city is Calgary is more economically developed. One of the identifying features of Albertan politics is a system of municipal government. Moreover, Alberta is the only Canadian province without provincial sales tax. Alberta is often referred to as Canadian Texas because of its right-wing politics. The politics is very stable and has led to the evolvement of political dynasties. However, such system has more drawbacks than benefits. In particular, even though the party might have a majority of seats, it does not mean that the government matches the needs of majority population. Recalling the elections in 2004, the majority was won by the Progressive Conservative Party; however, it obtained only 47% of popular vote (MacDonald, 2007). It has resulted in the opposition parties promoting electoral reform in policies. Notably, none of the parties had a chance to return to power after a defeat. The closer examination of unique tax system in Alberta and the resistance to change oil policies reveal that conservative rule is the most beneficial for the province.

Alberta is socially conservative and politically stable province. Very few changes in policies occur. Albertans oppose such social policies as gun control and same-sex marriages. The vast majority of Albertans support the death penalty according to the polls, even though it has been abolished in Canada since 1976 (Goldman, 2007). Albertans value their autonomy and even consider separation from Canada. Returning to the sales tax, Albertans are the lowest-taxed people in country. The sales tax is lowered due to sufficient oil and gas income. There is no provincial sales tax and Alberta, unlike other provinces, uses a flat rate income tax. Alberta does not receive equalization payments from government. The current tax system empowers Albertans to be active contributors to the program. Albertan officials make payments to poorer provinces to ensure that public services are provided equally in all provinces.

The tax system did not change for many years because of conservative nature of politics and society. Alberta is the only Canadian province whose people are not supporting any changes in political and social life. The conservatism of community is related to the wealth of province attributed to the availability of natural resources and friendly business climate. Nevertheless, the diversity of opinion in not well tolerated as McGuire has noted (2004). Albertans oppose any changes in government and politics. Opposition is very rare and is viewed as anti-Albertan. Historically, there has been rivalry between Edmonton (political center) and Alberta (economic capital). Edmonton, in particular, is more culturally diverse, while Calgary is characterized by unique entrepreneurial spirit.

Election in 2006 did not bring new changes as well and Conservative Party won all seats in Alberta, as usual. However, according to the recent poll, the support for Conservative Party is declining across the province and in Calgary, in particular (Harding, 2007). Community pays special attention to the political leaders and they want the elected politician to be the member of their community. They believe that candidates from other regions could not understand the needs of local population. Thus, a big fraction of population votes against newly emerged parties. As the political veteran Ken Chapman wrote, the Conservatives have learned a good lesson from elections in 2006 when some fraction of populated voted for another party (Harding, 2007). Nevertheless, Conservatives won again and no changes were brought.

In addition, some of the changes were initiated in oil policies. Oil is the most important sector of Calgary’s economy. According to the article titled “Politics of Oil”, Alberta oil is too costly and the high price undermines the effectiveness of economic system (2007). Unlike Saudi Arabia whose oil is much cheaper and is protected by the United States, Calgary oil reserves are abundant; however, the high standard of living requires high salaries. As the result, the oil prices increase. There is a need for change, while the community is not willing to change anything. Notably, the municipal elections in autumn 2007 were not focused on oil policies as well. The major emphasis was made on updating the infrastructure and rapid economic expansion (Goldman, 2007).

As Goldman outline, currently, the community of Alberta has the following needs: affordable housing options, recreational facilities for young population, and measures to cope with demographics (2007). Most of the people live in Calgary to work and politicians are trying to develop attractive policies with the hope to retain workers in rural areas. As Jim MacDonald wrote in November, the “Alberta politics is starting to sizzle” (2007, p. 1). The political landscape in the province is currently going through transition and there is a very high probability that the Progressive Conservatives will lose in the next election race. According to the polls, one third of all citizens are uncertain about who to support during coming election (MacDonald, 2007).

Nevertheless, the conservative nature of Alberta’s politics has proved to be beneficial for economic and social life of community. Today, Alberta is without debt, has extremely high gross provincial product, the highest per person spending the country, and attracts billions of dollars in investment. High economic indicators point out that conservative politics and stability are more effective in promoting economic growth than promotion of change. Community opposes changes and any policies which may result in significant changes. In particular, currently Stelmach is promoting his plan to increase energy royalties by 20% which can bring almost $1.5 billion annually to Alberta’s economy (MacDonald, 2007). Nevertheless, community opposes this plan! Moreover, some of the initiatives aimed at solving the transportation issue and introducing environmentally friendly vehicles fail to gain support among Albertans as well. Bill 46, on the contrary, is one of the laws which were passed despite of the uproar among population. Nevertheless, the bill is planned to be heavily amended in the nearest weeks to ensure public participation in utility hearings.

The uniqueness of Alberta’s politics is in its conservatism which has proved to be very effective historically. As the recent changes in policies suggest, the majority of population resists any kind of changes both within political field as well as economic. Alberta is the richest province in Canada with the wealth of natural resources and high economic indicators. The resistance to decrease oil price, lack of support for new energy royalty plan, and historical support for Conservative Party are three examples which justify the passiveness of Albertans. Currently, the community enjoys economic development, social and political stability and they do not see a need to change anything. The logic behind resistance to changes is clear because nobody can predict whether the changes will bring positive or negative results, while Albertans do not want to lose what they have now.

References

1. Goldman, S. (2007). Rapid growth top issue in towns. Races heat up in outlying communities. Calgary Herald, p. 1.
2. Harding, K. (2007). Election – Alberta politics Klein’s former seat falls to Liberals as Alberta Tories face by-election test. Alberta University Press.
3. MacDonald, J. (2007). Alberta politics starting to sizzle. The Calgary Sun, p. 3.
4. McGuire, R. (2004). Alberta Bound.
5. Politics of Oil. (2007). Calgary Herald, p. 1.

Introduction

Neo-conservatism is a relatively recent categorization of a political ideology that infiltrated the culture and was embraced by the former Bush administration. Commonly thought to be synonymous with the far right-wing of the Republican Party or ultra-conservatism, the expression neo-conservatism, or ‘neo-cons,’ describes a new type of conservatism, one whose roots are actually embedded in the philosophy of the left-wing. Conservatives and neo-cons are generally affiliated with the Republican Party but are often on opposing sides of an issue, the most significant example being the invasion and occupation of Iraq. This discussion examines the concept of neo-conservatism, its history, and the foreign and domestic policies of a U.S. government operated by this ideology.

What is a Neo-Con?

Neo-conservatives have been described as inherently evil, protectionists and self-absorbed capitalists but also by a now weakening minority as the protectors of the American way of life. With regards to foreign policy, neo-cons advocate a strike-first mentality while conservatives promote a ‘hands-off’ policy. The ‘neo’ or ‘new’ is attached to conservatism for two primary reasons. “Most of its architects were new to any kind of right-of-center orientation, having previously identified with the political left; and second, because the formulation of ‘conservatism’ that they produced was noticeably different in content and style from the mainstream American Conservatism that had prevailed since the New Deal-World War II eras” (Atkins & Tartakovsky, 2003).

Vietnam Beginnings

The Domino Excuse

Neo-conservatism originated in the 1930s when East coast socialists rejected the totalitarian views of Stalinism. The term became publicly acknowledged during the 1970s. It described liberals who were dissatisfied with the left-wing agenda, particularly in foreign affairs. It has since been used to define those considered ‘hawkish’ regarding foreign military involvement. During the Vietnam era, the neo-conservatism movement expanded due to the political polarization occurring in the country between the anti-war, anti-American sentiments of the counterculture and neo-cons who championed blind patriotism. Neoconservatives were not collected for the expansion or continuance of the war, but they were united in their fear that communism would spread. The term ‘domino theory’ was used quite often by the neo-cons to justify America’s military involvement in Southeast Asia. If Vietnam fell to the communists, they reasoned, the remainder of the region would be systematically consumed by the ‘Red Menace.’ “Informed by their faith in American power as a force for change, neo-cons are willing to use American military power for more than vital or strategic interests. This is what separates neo-cons from traditional conservatives” (Atkins & Tartakovsky, 2003).

Left-Wing Right-Wing Split

Unlike modern-day neoconservatives, those of the Vietnam era were concerned with the needs of society. They felt that the social programs of Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal and Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society did not go far enough and, in accordance with their socialists’ roots, advocated the redistribution of wealth to fund welfare programs. Neo-cons of this era promoted organized labor and acknowledged the weaknesses of the capitalist system, concepts that would be unimaginable to the neo-cons of today. The division of the neo-cons of the 1970s and those who fit this characterization now was finalized during the Bill Clinton years in the 1990s. Some drifted toward the left-wing ideology, less hawkish on wars but sympathetic to domestic issues. “Many neoconservatives stayed on the left, and their arguments went on to form Clinton’s centrist ‘third way.’ today, they are often called neo-liberals or New Democrats” (Muravchik, 2007). Some of the Vietnam era neo-cons, such as Vice President Dick Cheney, went to the right opposing domestic spending, advocating tax reductions for the wealthy and an attack-first, ask questions later mentality. Though domestic issues were once a rallying point then abandoned by contemporary neo-cons, foreign-policy matters invoked the most emotion, therefore attention from this group. They reasoned then, as they do now, that foreign affairs were a more important consideration for national discussion because the very survival of the nation was at stake. “If a domestic policy fails, you can try another. If a foreign policy fails, you may find yourself at war” (Muravchik, 2007).

Fear Fuels the Ideological Flames

The Vietnam War sharply divided the country, but neo-cons, even the ones who were less than hawkish, were always on the defensive regarding the consequences of losing to communism. When war opponents voiced the opinion that communism wasn’t the most imperative concern, that American imperialism and expansionistic tendencies were the big issues, neo-cons were quick to rebuke what they thought was unpatriotic rhetoric. They feared the proliferation of communism and argued this fear was not unfounded. President Jimmy Carter believed the neo-cons were overly paranoiac and suffered from an ‘inordinate fear of Communism.’ The leader of the neo-con agenda during the 1980s, Ronald Reagan, won this group’s admiration by calling the former Soviet Union the “evil empire”, a nation to be feared and opposed very much in contradiction with the approach of the Carter administration. Neo-cons of the 1980s as well as today “took the point of George Orwell’s 1984, a book that resurrected the idea of evil as a political category, and they absorbed the cautionary warning of the Russian novelist and dissident Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn against yielding ground to the Communists in the vain hope that perhaps at some point the wolf will have eaten enough” (Muravchik, 2007). Reagan successfully brought the conservatives and neo-cons together, which largely accounted for his popularity within the Republican Party. A former Democrat, Reagan inserted many neo-cons, including Elliott Abrams, Jeane Kirkpatrick, and Bill Bennett, into key foreign relations and domestic positions within his administration. This group of communist hard-liners is generally credited or credits themselves, depending on who is asked, with accelerating the collapse of the Soviet Union by using strong rhetoric and without using military actions.

Inconsistent Zealotry

The loudest propagandizing voices during the Cold War were the neo-cons who, to some extent, lost that voice during the President George H.W. Bush administration. As an example, neo-cons advocated military intervention in the Bosnian conflict in the early 1990s. Bush gave little notice to the genocide occurring in the former Yugoslavia, claiming that it posed no threat to the U.S. or its allies. According to his Secretary of State James A. Baker, ‘We have no dog in that fight’” (Atkins & Tartakovsky, 2003). Interestingly, the same neo-cons who urged Bush to intervene, reminding the President that this is the same area of the world where WWI began, chose to vilify President Clinton when he did intercede in the conflict. Neo-cons are referred to as anti-communist, imperialist zealots by liberals, and they proudly accept this description. They understand communism only as an immoral philosophical conception that, in practice, oppresses a godless society in addition to being a military and ideological threat to democracy and freedom. Communism must be eliminated at any cost, or it will eventually destroy the American form of democracy that many people had fought to preserve. It is not surprising that a portion of the generation who simultaneously saved the world from two oppressive regimes on two battlefronts during WWII would be for fighting against communism.

The former President Bush (‘W’) spoke against the idea of ‘nation building’ during his first run for office in 2000. However, the terrorist attacks of 9/11 changed his view on foreign policy. His closest advisors, including Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and Karl Rove, are all neo-cons who created a neo’ red scare’ by declaring a ‘war on terror.’ The neo-conservative conservative wing of the Republican Party was successful in misleading millions of terrified Americans following 9/11. At the time of the 2004 election, the majority of Americans believed that Iraq, somehow, was to blame for those attacks and that Saddam Hussein was hiding large quantities of weapons of mass destruction despite information from the U.N.’s weapons inspectors (Coleman, 2004).

Neo-Cons with Reigns of Government

A War of Choice

‘W’ Bush and the neo-con infested executive branch’s ‘war on terror included an illegal, immoral, and ill-conceived invasion of a sovereign nation which has resulted in the expansion of terrorist activities and is causing an intensified hatred of Western nations by the entire Middle Eastern region regardless of nationality or ideology and thus has been an effective recruitment tool for Al-Qaeda.

Justifications

During his State of the Union Address on September 20, 2001, former President Bush presented his neo-con position to the American people and the assembled body of Congress. “Our war on terror begins with al-Qaida, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped, and defeated” (White House, 2001). On November 13, 2001, on the first such occasion since World War II, Bush signed into law an executive order that allows military tribunals to use any actions they deem necessary. The U.S. military could now imprison for an indefinite period of time and without representation, any person of foreign nationality who is simply alleged to have associations with terrorist activities. For example, when the U.S. invaded Afghanistan, legal advisors tied closely to the neo-con ideology of the Bush administration within the Justice Department’s Office advised Bush that the U.S. was not legally bound by the U.N. Charter or international laws with regard to rules of engaging a perceived enemy. These views were echoed by Alberto Gonzales, then-White House legal advisor for the President and now Attorney General of the U.S. He also advised former President Bush that he did not have to comply with the Geneva Conventions in the handling of prisoners, or ‘detainees’ in this war on terror (Calame, 2006). This opinion, shared by legal counsels to the President, applied to not only those directly affiliated with al Qa’ida but to the entire ruling party in Afghanistan, the Taliban, because, as they argued, Afghanistan was a ‘failed state.’ The Bush administration chose to follow the advice of this jaded, self-serving legal opinion in spite of strong disagreement by the U.S. State Department, which cautioned against disregarding U.N. and international laws as well as covenants of the Geneva Conventions. The Bush administration was head-strong in its cavalier use of military force, and lack of respect for laws agreed to by the world’s community of nations (Mayer, 2005: 34).

The ultimate culmination of the rhetoric and selective legal reasoning regarding the ‘War on Terror’ was Bush’s order of the U.S. military to invade both Iraq and Afghanistan, an illegal act on many fronts. Bush had constantly maintained that these actions against sovereign countries were legal. First, he argues, because of existing language within the UN Security Council resolutions on Iraq, which is also publicly espoused by the British government, and secondly, the invasions are an act of self-defense which international law permits. However, according to noted neo-con Richard Perle, a top official of the U.S. Defense Policy Board and advisor to U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, “international law… would have required us to leave Saddam Hussein alone” (Burkeman & Borger, 2003). Yet, this would have been “morally unacceptable,” according to the Bush administration, which took the neo-con philosophy to its extreme.

Ideology Trumps the Law

Global

The first foreign mission of the U.S. military in its ‘War on Terror, along with the ‘coalition of the willing,’ was Afghanistan and the Taliban terrorist group based in that country. The United Nations Charter, Article 51, Chapter Seven stipulates “nothing shall impair the inherent right of individual or self-defense defense if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations” (United Nations Charter, 1945). Article 51 grants a country the justification to deter an act or acts of imminent or ongoing violence but only as a temporary solution until the UN Security Council is able to take the necessary actions to ensure the security of the affected region. By a strict interpretation of this Article, the rights of self-defense a country may exercise do not include the right to retaliate once an attack has stopped. In order to initiate the tenants of Article 51, it is first necessary that a nation experience an ‘armed attack’ defined by the explicit meaning of the Charter. The definition of ‘armed attack’ is broad, as established in the Nicaragua case (Maier, 1987) where the International Court of Justice (ICJ) held that the concept covers “the sending by or on behalf of a state of armed bands, groups, irregulars or mercenaries’ and a state’s ‘substantial involvement therein.”

National

The ‘war on terror’ also produced the PATRIOT Act. A close examination of the Act, which the members of Congress did not do prior to voting, confirms that those that champion civil liberties as such are justifiably alarmed. Libertarian organizations such as the Civil Liberties Union claim that the Bush administration had a proclivity for secrecy and rejects the concept of transparency. The PATRIOT Act reproved Bush’s agenda for the “outright removal of checks and balances” (Etzioni, 2004: 9). The Bush administration, the best friend of the neo-con ideology, also justifies the use of torture tactics in secretive prisons so as to extract information from ‘enemy combatants’ as another important tool in the war on terror.

The aftermath of Neo-Con Control

Economic

The Bush administration cut the taxes of the rich while increasing military expenditures on The War on Terror, invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, and the rebuilding of those countries. The debt now exceeded even the Reagan administration’s record levels. It has severely hampered America’s ability to continue to defend itself effectively or become involved in other potential conflicts worldwide. “There is a growing concern about what the increasing U.S. national debt will do to the nation’s ability to influence world affairs” (Suter, 2004). This over-expenditure to conquer a regime that contradicted the precepts of democracy is continually justified by the neo-con ideology of the Bush administration.

War Crimes

The Chief Prosecutor of the war criminals at the Nuremberg Trials subsequent to World War Two, U.S. citizen Benjamin B. Ferencz, condemned the Iraq invasion calling it an “aggressive war” and declared that Bush, the war’s architect, should be put on trial for his war crimes (Glantz, 2006). The trial at Nuremberg determined that military aggression is considered the most supreme of international crimes. Following the massive human carnage of the Second World War, the United Nations charter was written so as to prevent this type of action from ever happing again. It contains explicit provisions prohibiting any nation from using military force without the consent of the Security Council (United Nations Charter, 1945). Nelson Mandela, widely renowned as one of the most respected statesmen in the world, also condemned this action as “a threat to world peace. It is clearly a decision that is motivated by George W Bush’s desire to please the arms and oil industries in the United States of America” (“The US Threatens World Peace”, 2002). Mandela was hardly alone in his assessment. The war is unquestionably illegal as defined by the ICJ and the UN, the two most preeminent legal bodies on the globe.

Domestic

On the domestic front, the neo-con ideology of the Bush administration was firmly aligned with the far right-wing religious sect and made it very clear that it is opposed to legal abortions, in at least most circumstances, and had transferred this ideology to its prohibition of embryonic stem cell research. Following the lifting of the stem cell research ban by the Obama administration, the U.S. is finally allowed to participate, but U.S. scientists are now well behind the curve of technological and structural systems. This industry is pumping money into many economies while the U.S. is just starting to catch up. Domestic concerns have taken a backseat to foreign issues. In 2004, Bush made federal education spending cuts in several key educational areas, including $680 million in No Child Left Behind, $393 million in the after-school programs, and $304 million for vocational and adult education. In the same year, public college tuition went up by 14 percent nationally, while Bush proposed cutting Pell Grants by $260 million. In 2005, Congress cut $1 billion from the so-called ‘No Child Left Behind’ Act (Cahoon, 2005).

Environmental

Although warnings about the human-generated causes of an enhanced greenhouse effect and the subsequent catastrophic outcomes have been sounded for over 100 years, global warming only in the last year of his Presidency became an important matter for Bush but only because of political reasons. He and the neo-con ideology he serves continued to ignore the looming problem because the issue does not address their major concern, perceived foreign threats. In 1997, the Kyoto Treaty, which has been signed by more than 160 countries, is, to date, the most comprehensive global effort to decrease CO2 emissions. Though the agreement was signed by the U.S. and then President Clinton consented to decrease greenhouse emissions in the U.S. by 40 percent, it was being dismissed by the Bush administration and still yet to be ratified by the U.S. CO2 greenhouse gases have since increased in the country that produces well more than any other (Melinin, 2005).

Conclusion

Neo-conservatism began as a hawkish yet compassionate branch of the left-wing. Over time, those of a liberal ideology abandoned the neo-cons to the far-right-wing, which has a narrow and rigid view of the government’s role in foreign and domestic affairs. In simplistic terms, neo-cons are in favor of forcefully imposing the will of the U.S. onto other countries and, in essence, ignoring domestic issues. The neo-con take-over of the highest office in the land cost the nation dearly on many fronts. One can only trust that the people of this country have learned a lesson from the myopic and destructive ideology of neo-conservatism.

References

1. Atkins, Drew & Tartakovsky, Joey. (2003). “Blue Traffic Lights: Neoconservatism History 101.” Daily Nexus. Vol. 84, I. 47. Santa Barbara, CA: University of California, Santa Barbara.
2. Burkeman, Oliver & Borger, Julian. (2003). “War Critics Astonished as US Hawk Admits Invasion was Illegal.” Manchester Guardian.
3. Cahoon, Cecil. (2005). “Congress Strips Billions from Public Education.” National Education Association.
4. Calame, Byron. (2006). “Rewriting the Geneva Convention.” New York Times. Web.
5. Coleman, Vernon. (2004). “How George W. Bush Won the 2004 USA Presidential Election” Web.
6. Etzioni, Amitai. (2004). “How Patriotic Is the Patriot Act?” Freedom versus Security in the Age of Terrorism. New York, Routledge.
7. Glantz, Aaron. (2006). “Bush and Saddam Should Both Stand Trial, Says Nuremberg Prosecutor.” One World USA.
8. Maier, Harold G. (1987). “Appraisals of the ICJ’s Decision: Nicaragua vs. United States.” American Journal of International Law. Vol. 81.
9. Malinin, Sergei. (2005). “USA, China and India Outlaw Kyoto Protocol and Set Forth New Climate Change Initiative.” Pravda.
10. Mayer, Jane. (2005). “Outsourcing Torture: The Secret History of America’s ‘Extraordinary Rendition.’” The New Yorker Magazine.
11. Muravchik, Joshua. (2007). “The Past, Present, and Future of Neoconservatism.” Commentary Magazine.
12. Suter, Keith. (2004). “The Next International ‘Debt Crisis’ is in North America.” Online Opinion.
13. United Nations Charter. Chapter Seven. (1945).
14. “US Threatens World Peace, Says Mandela.” (2002). BBC News. Web.
15. (The) White House. (2001). “Address to a Joint Session of Congress and the American People.” Washington, D.C.: United States Capitol.

Conservatism can be defined as a social and political term used to mean save or preserve. Though its application differs from country to country, conservation political ideology holds up all the tradition and tradition values i.e. it is a preference of historic ideas rather than the modern ideals and abstracts (Heywood, 2007 pg 107-113). Conservatism was developed in the 1789 as a reaction to the French revolution. This was attributed to the fact that the French Revolution had an effect on the traditional values and beliefs and thus the conservatism developed this ideology that tried to restore the pre- revolutionaries’ tradition and tradition values.

Conservatism belief that the society is not only a collection of individuals but rather a living organism that is closely related but with different individuals; it thus allows for the gradually developing institutions and practices that are shown continuity and stability (Rejai Mostafa, 1995 pg 30-45).

Conservatism political ideology is practiced in the modern political world as it opposes the liberalism and radicalism opinion that the human beings can be ethically modified through political and social changes. However, conservatism argues that human beings are guilty of original sin and are full of evil thoughts and actions. Moreover, conservatism tends to assume that human beings are pushed by their zeal and craving and thus they will act in a violent and irrational al manner so as to achieve their desires (Heywood, 2007 pg 112-140). Thus conservatism tend to address tradition al politics and cultural values so as curb restrain human behavior and thus ensuring ethical behavior.

Conservatism as opposed to liberalism, embrace concrete traditions which are used to plan the society. Conservatism supports the idea that the society is complex and there is a difference in what the government plans to do and the actual thing that happens in the society. This is because people adopt skills, manners, morality and other cultural values and practices from their ancestors thus knowledge of society history is essential especially to a political leader as he or she will be able to anticipate the effect of the change that he or she want to instigate in that particular society.

Moreover, this knowledge will help in the implementation of the government or the political leaders’ ideas in the society (Rejai, 1995 pg 80-104). All these ideals of conservatism political ideology are largely practiced in the world; many leaders have gone to the socity so as to understand their culture and their cultural values before instigating their political ideas. This has resulted to the adaptation of their ideas at the grassroot level and this has lead to societal growth.

In the future the political leaders of the world are likely to adopt the organization political ideology. This political ideology seeks for social array which follow collective goals, control its performance and has put bounders to distinguish it from surrounding environment (Heywood, 2007 pg 140-230). Under this, the society will formulate collective goals that they want to achieve and the political leaders have to follow these goals.

This ideology is the seen to develop in the future because the society is becoming more knowledgeable about the political arrangements and thus they are coming together to ensure that their needs are met by the political leaders. This can only be achieved if the society formulates their own collective goals and objectives that they will force the political leaders to help them achieve (Rejai, 1995 pg 50-79).

The leaders of today should ensure that they understand their societies in regard to their culture and cultural values so that when the future comes they can be able to help them achieve their goals and objectives.

References

Heywood Andrew. Political Ideologies: An Introduction Andrew Heywood. 4^th Edition. Palgrave Macmillan. 2007, pg. 107- 350.

Rejai Mostafa. Political ideologies: a comparative approach. 2^nd Edition. M.E. Sharpe, 1995, pg. 30-250.

Prompt I

The misery index was a combined total of inflation and unemployment rates which was beleaguering the US economy in the 1970s. Carter realized their negative effects and sought to dedicate his economic policy to reducing these indicators. At first, Carter used a Keynesian approach of federally funded programs meant to grow the economy and reduce unemployment. However, it had little effect while leading to hyperinflation of 13 percent by 1980 (Moss and Thomas 2012, 202).

Carter then appointed a new head of the federal reserve, Paul Volcker, who introduced severe monetary restrictions. In the short term, inflation declined, but interest rates and unemployment rose dramatically. In the long term, inflation began to rise again. This also had a negative outcome in combination with ongoing energy crises and the economy was in a recession.

Carter then aimed to introduce deregulation to the oil and airlines industry. This had some positive effects such as lowering prices, lessening barriers to entry, and expanding passenger traffic. There is heavy criticism of Carter’s presidency, but it often overlooks the success of his energy policy. The US being an industry-heavy country at the time, energy was an integral part of the economy, which Carter understood. He worked with Congress to pass the Emergency Natural Gas Act that allowed regulate energy suppliers, allocate interstate natural gas, and introduce new sustainable sources of energy. Joint-ventures were created with private businesses in the oil and natural gas industry which greatly increased the supply of energy (Strong n.d.).

It can be argued that although the misery index did not improve during Carter’s short one-term presidency, the economy is naturally a long-term prospect. Carter inherited an economy wrought with mismanagement, poor policy, and burdens of the Vietnam War. His short-term policies had little effect, but long-term impacts such as energy policy success contributed greatly to America’s prosperity in the next decade.

Despite Carter’s attempts to fix the economy and meet with industry leaders to determine issues, he blamed it on a crisis of spirit, while most pundits agreed that Carter was an inherently weak leader and could not effectively address the problem. The misery index was created by the economist Arthur Okun who was a chairman of President Johnson’s Council of Economic Advisors. It remained relatively unknown to the public until Carter popularized it in his 1976 Presidential campaign as a means to criticize his opponent, Gerald Ford. Ironically, the misery index increased exponentially during Carter’s administration which was one of the factors that led to his eventual loss to the Republican candidate, Ronald Reagan.

Prompt II

As change was affecting American society, it impacted religion as well. The Catholic Church was undergoing a shift after Vatican II, which attempted to modernize the church and its traditions, including being more accepting of liberal beliefs, minorities, less traditional lifestyles, and actively participating in activism for peace and disadvantaged Americans. While many supported these changes, a number for traditional believers rejected them and continued to follow old traditions, including preaching against birth control, abortion, and homosexuality.

Protestant churches, which were already less traditionalist, took a strong liberal approach and reforming to become widely tolerant of new lifestyles and emerging minorities. However, a vocal group of Protestants known as Evangelical Christians became actively opposed to non-traditional lifestyles and modern beliefs. They became a profound element in the conservative far-right movement and used the media to their advantage. Books, radio sermons, and television shows such as the extremely popular “700 Club” became widely known in society, promoting the conservative social and political agenda (Moss and Thomas 2012, 221).

The Jewish community also shifted from its traditional roots to becoming more liberal and accepting. Many Jews participated in liberal activism, particularly, in regard to Civil Rights Movement. Although many Jewish individuals remained within their communities and many still upkept traditions, they were overall more accepting of some elements of modern life. In general, all religious communities underwent significant change towards liberalism of beliefs and ideas, but some members in all denominations chose to not accept this. Consequently, this led to a split within religious congregations to liberal and conservative supporters similarly to the way it occurred in society.

Due to the large social pressures of accepting liberal ideology and such a rapid shift internally, conservative groups in various religions felt the need to become more vocal and entrenched. They eventually became what is known as the Religious Right, a series of religious organizations and pressure groups which became actively engaged in politics. Although they appealed to the conservative culture of Americans from practically every religion and denomination, the primary substance of the movement consisted of Evangelical Christians. They sought to connect to Americans with traditionalist views by emphasizing family values.

The Religious Right became involved in economics, opposing heavy-handed government intervention and even advocated for a hardline foreign policy against Communism. The Right groups believed that America was experiencing a moral decline leading to its economic and political turmoil throughout the 1970s. As a result, the Religious Right had a significant impact on the election of Carter and Reagan, which were both more conservative than their political opponents (McVicar 2016).

Bibliography

McVicar, Michael J. 2016. “The Religious Right in America.” Oxford Research Encyclopedias. Web.

Moss, George D., and Evan A. Thomas. 2012. Moving on: The American People Since 1945. 5th ed. London: Pearson.

Strong, Robert A. N.d. “Jimmy Carter: Domestic Affairs.” UVA Miller Center. Web.