The Great Society was the name for Johnson’s domestic agenda (analogous to FDR’s New Deal). It demonstrated the height of liberal policymaking in the post-World War II era. Unlike the New Deal, it occurred during a time of prosperity for most Americans. By the end of Johnson’s presidency, the liberal Great Society was undergoing criticism from both the Right and the Left.
In 1963, President Lyndon Johnson attended a joint meeting of Congress and vowed to ensure economic opportunities and ensure their freedom and justice for all to live a better life. In May 1964, at a speech at the University of Michigan, Johnson spoke about his vision for a liberal Great Society that was thinking about creation. By fighting racism and eliminating poverty, the reform of the Johnson administration changed the country.
The legislation passed in parliament in 1965 was the Primary and Secondary Education Act. Johnson was a former teacher and knew that lack of education was the main cause of poverty and other social problems. Educational reform was therefore an important pillar of the society he wanted to create. The law increased federal funding for both primary and secondary schools and allocated more than $ 1 billion to purchase books and library materials and create educational programs for underprivileged children. The higher education law, passed by law, created a team of teachers that provided scholarships and low-interest loans for the poor, increased federal funding to universities, and served schools in poor areas.
He also focused on consumer protection and passed legislation that set car safety standards, food safety, and warning labels on cigarette packages. To protect the environment, the Johnson administration enacted laws to protect air and water, regulate solid waste disposal, protect wilderness areas, and protect endangered species. In 1965, he encouraged Congress to pass an immigration nationality law. This law lifts strict restrictions on immigrants from Asia and prioritizes migrants with connections to US families. This measure opened the door to a new era of immigrants and enabled the formation of Asian and Latin American immigrant communities in the coming decades.
In 1965, Johnson passed the Social Security Act, because the elderly were the poorest and most disadvantaged citizens. The biggest change caused by this was the creation of a policy in which the US government compensated for medical costs for people over the age of 65, which was Medicare. The American Medical Association, who feared the creation of a national health system, opposed it, but the new program was favored by most citizens because it would benefit not only the poor but all social classes. The law and subsequent amendments also provided compensation for self-employed employees in certain occupations and increased the number of persons with disabilities eligible for benefits.
The biggest failure in Johnson’s policy was the handling of the Vietnam War. As the war expanded, much money was spent to cover it. This reduced the money spent on many social programs he created to free people from poverty. He knew that he could not achieve his liberal Great Society while spending a lot of money on the war. However, he refused to withdraw from the Vietnam War, because he believed he had to show that there was a big power difference between the US and other countries.
The liberal Great Society did not work more than Johnson wanted, but it was true that it had a great impact on people’s lives. By the time he retired, the proportion of people living below the poverty line was cut by almost half.
“War made the state, and the state made war”, this cyclical representation of war and peace presented by Charles Tilly is a defining feature of international relations (IR). By using theory in this discipline, the recurring theme of war and peace amongst states can again be expanded upon. Realism and liberalism are two core theoretical concepts in IR which attempt to provide a conceptual framework in which themes like this can be examined. Realism focuses on power politics and the inherent selfishness of human nature over moral and ethical values. Liberalism instead rejects power politics and focuses on the concept of harmony and balance amongst competing states. These theories thus provide opposing opinions on the causes of war in a context of an interconnected anarchical world. They again provide differing perspectives on the obtainment of peace in this context. In this essay, the main points of difference between a realist and a liberal approach to the causes of war and peace will be discussed. This will be achieved by looking at the key voices of realist and liberal thought, as well as particular theories that help provide a foundation for peace.
Power politics in realism is the idea that a person or state uses their power or influence over others. Jack Donnelly notes that the theory of power politics is based on two fundamental suppositions: the egotistical characteristics of human nature and the state-system operating in a context of international anarchy. The structural implications of international anarchy are explored by Thucydides and Thomas Hobbes, both of whom are considered to be main voices on realist thought. Thucydides in his ‘History of the Peloponnesian War’ notes on the issue on anarchy on an international scope and its connection to the processes of war. He identifies the key characteristic for a state to go to war with another state – fear: “What made war inevitable was the growth of Athenian power and the fear which this caused in Sparta”. Hobbes in ‘Leviathan’ instead proposes that the weight of egoism in human nature and anarchy is equal. This equality suggests that humans are naturally driven by competition, diffidence and glory. Hobbes notes that the natural condition of man is one in a state of war. Kenneth Waltz argues that these structural effects of an anarchic system are what shapes the tension between states: “Because some states may at any time use force, all states must be prepared to do so-or live at the mercy of their militarily more vigorous neighbors”. This indicates that there is a constant conflict and struggle of security between states that may not necessarily lead to war, but it is a possibility. E. H. Carr suggests instead that “it is profitless to imagine a hypothetical world in which men no longer organize themselves in groups for purposes of conflict”. This highlights how egoism and conflict is a core intrinsic value of human nature which greatly influences and defines power politics.
Contrastingly, liberalism stresses the ideals of individualism, equality, and moral virtue. Individuals have a responsibility to respect others, value them as ‘ethical subjects’ and conduct social action. This constitutes to the processes and actions within war, as liberalism acknowledges that war is a possibility, and if it were to happen, then it should follow the criteria of the just war theory. The just war theory is a doctrine that guides military ethics. It identifies a set of morally justifiable criteria to ensure war does not happen for untenable reasons. The criteria are based off of two Latin terms: jus ad bellum (‘right to go to war’) and jus in bello (‘right conduct in war’). This thus dictates the ethics and moral actions surrounding going to war and being at war. Jus ad bellum has seven points of criteria: just cause, comparative justice, competent authority, right intention, probability of success, last resort, and proportionality. Jus in bello instead has five: distinction, proportionality, military necessity, fair treatment of prisoners of war, and no means malum in se. These essentially outline that civilians should not be targeted in times of war and malevolent methods of warfare are not tolerated and not ethically right. Liberals attest that just war is waged in terms of self-defense, or in defense of another. This contrasts the realist perspectives of Hobbes and Machiavelli, who believe that war in general is waged in pure malignant fashion which does not constitute it to be a ‘just’ war.
The balance of power theory in neorealism focuses on the attainment of peace amongst states. This theory, which realists use to explain the possible causes of peace, highlights how states can gain power both internally and externally. Waltz notes on how internal efforts include increasing economic and military strength, whereas external factors include forming alliances with other states. This thus allows for nations to be in a state of equilibrium with one another and to also maintain that balance of power to benefit all actors. Waltz argues that states must accept this shared interest, “only if stakes recognize the rules of the game and play for the same limited stakes can the balance of power fulfil its functions for international stability and national independence”. Thucydides, however, notes that the issue with the concept of anarchy is that there is no principal authority. Therefore, the only way to preserve order is through a balance of power. As previously stated, Thucydides believes that fear is a fundamental aspect for going to war with another state. He notes that as this is an inherent human characteristic then war is inevitable. Due to the growth of Athenian power, Sparta became defensive, which essentially undermines the achievement of peace. Therefore, without measures in place to balance power and polarity peace is disrupted and war arises. Hobbes’ theory on state of nature notes that without a centralized government, anarchy remain and so does the constant prospects of war. Whereas Thucydides believes that in a balance of power the stronger states still prevail over the weaker ones, Hobbes suggest that every person is equal: “The weakest has strength enough to kill the strongest, either by secret machination or by confederacy with others that are in the same danger with himself”.
While realism believes peace can be achieved through the balancing of powers, liberalism instead suggests that the democratic peace theory can effectively cause peace. The democratic peace theory states that democracies are hesitant to engage in war with other democratic countries. This theory, however, holds innate flaws, as the academic definitions of ‘democracy’ and ’war’ can be greatly manipulated. John Owens notes this as realists will claim that “when power politics requires war with a democracy, liberals will redefine that state as a despotism; when power politics requires peace with a non-democracy, they will redefine that state as a democracy”. Democratic peace theory was inspired by Immanuel Kant’s idea on perpetual peace and how the people would not vote to go to war: “Under a non-republican constitution, where subjects are not citizens, the easiest thing in the world to do is to declare war. Here the ruler is not a fellow citizen, but the nation’s owner, and war does not affect his table, his hunt, his places of pleasure, his court festivals, and so on. Thus, he can decide to go to war for the most meaningless of reasons, as if it were a kind of pleasure party…”. Thus, if all states were republics, or in this case democracies, then peace could be obtained. Owen again notes that liberal ideology on peace prohibits war on other democracies and instead causes war with illiberal actors. This causes the birth of democratic institutions that further push the prospects of peace.
In conclusion, there are main points of theoretical differences between realism and liberalism and their approaches in examining the causes of war and peace. By analyzing the realist works of classical historians like Thucydides, who provide political and military theory that remains universal despite differing contexts, or Thomas Hobbes, a key Enlightenment figure, who provides the fundamental understanding on anarchy and hierarchy in the political sphere, a framework emerges in evaluating the prospects of war and peace. Contrastingly, by applying liberal notions, like the democratic peace theory, which arose form Kant’s perpetual peace philosophy, or the just war theory, a further understanding arises on a liberal perception on the causes of war and peace. From this, a comparison can be made between these two integral antithetical notions of IR. It can also show the dissimilarities between both concepts as many realists perceive liberal peace theories of democracy, as a fantasy that cannot be explained by a persuasive ‘mechanism’. This again is emphasized by the liberal notion of the rejection of power politics, which is a core aspect of realist IR thought. While these differences are striking, it thus provides a deeper understanding of central aspects of discourse and discipline which allow for to meaning to arise.
The international political economy is the convergence of political and economic powers to produce a particular set of forces and dynamics in the world. The contemporary global system can be explained through three theoretical paradigms of Liberalism, Mercantilism, and Marxism. They are essential in understanding the characteristics of the economic system and the challenges it faces. This essay will explore the fundamental political and economic ideas or assumptions that underpin each of the key theoretical perspectives as well as explain what assumptions they make about ‘Man’ and ‘Nature’. In addition, exploration of these paradigms will be assisted with further examples, and institutions will be used to display an understanding of how the paradigms engage in the contemporary scene of the International Political Economy.
In 1994, Policymakers gathered at Bretton Woods in the USA to resolve two problems. Firstly, to prevent the Great Depression of the 1930s from ever happening again by enduring an open world trading system and global monetary system. Secondly, they needed to restructure Europe’s economics (Woods, 2011:326). In 1946, the first Bretton Woods institutions emerged. The International Monetary Fund provided emergency systems to states and created a stable exchange to help trade. The World Bank dealt with planning development paths and providing a place where private investment could step in to recuperate (Woods, 2011:327). Lastly, in 1948 the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs, later replaced by the World Trade Organisation, became a forum for developing countries to use collective bargaining power to negotiate trade liberalization and to counter the dominance of more established economies like the US (Woods, 2011: 327).
The Bretton Woods institutions predominantly advocate for policies aligned to liberal assumptions like cooperation and free trade. Although, if we take one institution, the WTO, and look at it from all three perspectives it will help to illustrate their differences. Multilateral agreements like those negotiated by the WTO are under threat in the contemporary world because of the slide to the right of more unilateral thinking. Mercantilism would see this as a way of allowing existing markets to move ahead and expand without restriction whilst liberalism might suggest that markets will take over from the WTO in order to find the best balance of trade. Marxism would argue that the negative impact of unilateralism will undermine multilateral agreements which protect developing countries and their economies. This leads us to the three key paradigms with specific moral and analytic stances on global economic relations. (Woods, 2011:332).
Emerging from the Enlightenment writings of Adam Smith, is an economic critique of the mercantilist practice in early modern Europe, Liberalism (Gilpin,1987:26). Liberal theory has two separate components, the political and the economic. For liberals a source of peaceful relations comes from trade and economic interaction, this is due to the mutual benefits and expanding independence which induces cooperative relationships (Gilpin, 1987: 31). The economy (market) dominates the political and the market should be left to sort itself out even when the political (the organized people) wants to challenge it. Under liberalism everyone can win, free trade and free flow of capital will shape government policies and the ‘invisible hand’ of competition will ensure order in the global market. Under free exchange, it is believed that individuals will be rewarded for their marginal productivity and overall contribution to society (Woods, 2011: 333).
Economic liberalism believes individuals are economic animals by nature and will pursue their interests in a world of scarcity and resource constraints. It argues that the world should be run on efficiency, to stimulate growth and that consumer choice markets should be protected from political interference (Gilpin, 1987: 26). There is the assumption that free trade and free flow of capital will ensure that investment will go to where it is most profitable (Woods, 2011: 332). They tend to focus on the realm in which nation-states show their peaceful, cooperative, and constructive natures through harmonious competition (Balaam & Dillman, 2011: 35). Political liberalism, on the other hand, is committed to individual equality and liberty (Gilpin, 1987: 26). In the international economy the individual is viewed as the main actor, a rational being who tries to maximize certain values at the lowest possible cost (Gilpin, 197: 31). Their self-interest allows for constructive, competitive engagement to take place (Balaam & Dillman, 2011: 29).
Mercantilism emphasizes one of the basic coercions of nation-states, to create and sustain power in order to protect national wealth and security (Balaam & Veseth, 2008: 22). It arises partly from the tendency of markets to concentrate wealth and establish dependency or power relations between strong and weak economies (Gilpin, 1987: 33). Power lies with those states that seek to maximize their wealth and independence, the most powerful states define the rules and sustain order through hegemony (Woods, 2011: 333). Economic activities should be secondary to the goal of the state (Gilpin, 1987: 31). Mercantilists do not focus on the individual and their choices but rather view the world economy as an area of inter-state competition. To remain competitive, states implement protectionist policies (limits on exports and imports like tariffs) and subsidies (Lim, 2014:34). This limitation generates trade surpluses which creates wealth and therefore power (Balaam & Veseth, 2008: 22). Mercantilists have a zero-sum world view, meaning there can only be one winner in the economic market (Balaam & Veseth, 2008: 23).
Man is viewed as an autonomous being who operates in a state that is molded through an inevitable result of the anarchic system. All mercantilists ascribe to national security, the dominance of the state, and military power in the functioning of the international system (Gilpin, 1987: 31). There are two strands of mercantilism that emerge, a defensive position known as ‘benign’ mercantilism focused on protecting the economy against external forces (Balaam & Veseth, 2008: 30) and a more aggressive strand known as ‘malevolent’ mercantilism a more intimidating version of economic warfare and expansionary policies (Gilpin, 1987: 32).
Gaining power and hegemony to maintain order is the main goal for mercantilists. Power determines the relationship between the market and authority. Those who exercise authority will derive power from three main sources, force, wealth, and ideas. In the political economy structural power, having the ability to influence how things will take place, and having control over the mode of production shaping frameworks within inter-state relations, and relative power, determining the surrounding structure of the relationship, are both exercised (Strange,1988: 24). Structural power creates the ordered state of nature which enables increased relative power over individuals producing hegemony. Mercantilism is generally cited as being the driving force behind colonialism and imperialism (Balaam & Veseth, 2008: 34). Robert Keohane illustrates how mercantilists view hegemonic stability and power by stating that the strongest, most well-ordered international regimes are a result of hegemonic structures of power dominated by a single country. A classic example of this is the eras of imperialism pax Britannica and pax Americana in which strong powers used coerciveness to gain hegemony and influence (Cox, 1981: 139).
The third paradigm is Marxism which views the world economy as an arena of competition amongst capitalists, workers, and social groups not among states. Capitalism is the driving force behind the constant class struggle between the oppressor and the oppressed (Woods, 2011: 333). The oppressors/capitalists own the trade and industry and the oppressed/working class are the cogs in the system. The mode of production is the basis of class power and so when capitalists seek to increase their profits it usually leads to the exploitation of the working class (Strange, 1988: 29). The capitalist system has been used to describe the imbalanced exchange between the core, industrialized countries, and the periphery, developing countries. Order is only achieved where capitalists succeed in obtaining the compliance of all others in the state. But, Marxists will argue that Capitalism is becoming increasingly unstable as demonstrated by the Global financial crisis of 2008 (Lim, 2014: 36).
Additionally, Marxism focuses on the structure of production. In this case, capitalists, and the state in which they operate, can use structural power to defend and strengthen the social and political institutions and legal administrations, making it tough for others to challenge its hegemony (Strange, 1988: 29). Class conflict drives social change and therefore, the more structural power gained, the more the working class is driven to revolution (Strange, 1988: 30). Marx understood capitalism as a necessary stage in human history, as it provided the social basis for the final stage of communism to succeed. (Lim, 2014: 64).
For the purpose of showing the differences between the three perspectives and understanding them in a more contemporary world, the 2011 military intervention in Libya will be investigated from each perspective respectively. This example demonstrates how the global balance of forces allows powerful military interests to manipulate international systems, like the UN Security Council, to create a pretext for violating the sovereignty of member states in pursuit of their own economic and political interests. It shows where economic and political interests subvert international law and international agreements, allowing foreign powers, in this case, the US and NATO, to pursue their military interests. Owing to oil being central to the invasion of Libya it points also to how militarily commandeering the economic assets of another country is part of the International Political Economy.
On the 17th of February 2011, the peaceful protests against the rule of Qaddafi began advocating for democratic change and respect for human rights. The unarmed demonstrators were met with violent shutdowns by the Libyan authorities and the situation turned into a mass revolt. Within a few weeks, the demonstrators started an armed rebellion and established a transitional national council. The response from the government was to push back on areas now under control by the rebels (Ulfstein & Christiansen, 2013:159). The UN Security Council adopted Resolution 1973 permitting member states to protect Libyan civilians. Resolution 1973 represents the first mandate by the Security Council for a military intervention based on the responsibility to protect against the request of a functioning government (Ulfstein & Christiansen, 2013:161).
Disagreement emerged about the Resolution and concerns were raised about military overreaches, like whether or not the bombing carried out by NATO and its allies on Qaddafi’s forces was within the mandate provided. By June 2011 NATO attacks had weakened Qaddafi’s forces (Siebens & Case, 2012: 20). In October, a US predator drone and French warplane attacked a convoy attempting to assist Qaddafi’s escape. However, the strikes failed to kill him, and he managed to get away. He was later caught by a group of rebels who filmed him being beaten up and then executing him as he tried to surrender. The success of the anti-Qaddafi rebels in 2011 must be largely attributed to NATO air power, it essentially acted as the air force for rebel troops. The international intervention in Libya was more concerned with facilitating the overthrow of Qaddafi’s government than preventing a humanitarian crisis (Siebens & Case, 2012: 21).
Seen through the lens of Liberalism, the weakening of the Libyan state would be viewed as a positive outcome (Woods, 2011: 333). The weakened state opened up the economy, allowing the market to determine the price of assets and goods, aligning with the liberalist assertion that market forces should be left to operate without interference. The state could become more cooperative and trade relations could take place with the West, since Qaddafi was dead, they would no longer have to face the “tyrant” that had ruled Libya and threatened their hegemony.
This same event can be looked at from a mercantilist perspective. Mercantilists focus on where their power lies with other states and how they seek to maximize their wealth and independence (Woods, 2011: 333). Therefore, they would have viewed the regime change positively. A post-Qaddafi Libya, more under the control of NATO and its allies, would be more likely to negotiate terms of inter-state trade that would benefit the powerful amongst the mercantilists. Qaddafi was able to use the wealth generated by the resources in Libya to somewhat isolate Libya from the rest of the world economy. While he maintained a strong state, with strong control over the economy, he refused to cooperate with the global economy in a manner that made it easy for the established dominant states to take advantage. For Mercantilists the regime change might have been an opportunity to change the economic policies of the country and allow easier access and more opportunities for inter-state trade. Maybe, in the short term, the instability may have been seen as a concern, but with an eye on medium-term recovery and the emergence of new state order, the longer-term outlook would have been seen as potentially lucrative.
Marxists did understand that capitalism was necessary for the final stage of communism to prosper (Lim, 2014: 64). Marxists look at things through a class lens and so it is necessary to see how the Libyan conflict impacted each layer differently. This is a representation of what the classes may have experienced. At the level of the capitalist, the ones who own the means of production, the Libyan invasion shifted the ownership of assets from one part of the capitalist class to another. Assets, in this case, would be the oil fields and much of the other extractive and industrial assets, including the land that was taken in Libya. They shifted Qaddafi, his family, and others who benefited from their role in society to new owners who divided up the spoils of the war.
The middle classes would have adjusted to the new conditions. They were initially affected by the economic downturn and unpredictability that the invasion and civil war brought but would have started stabilizing as the Libyan economy recovered a bit. The poor and working-class bear the brunt of it, victims of the upsurge in violence on all sides were forced into armies and insurgency movements without much to say about it. The closing and damaging of industries due to the violence meant jobs were lost. They remained the marginalized victims in a system where they were exploited and oppressed.
Each of the three paradigms interprets and explains the convergence of political and economic power in a distinct way. The use of the Libyan invasion example, as well as the WTO, showed just how differently each perspective interprets the same circumstances through applying their respective assumptions. Liberalists assume that man is a rational being who maximizes value at the lowest possible cost while ensuring minimal state intervention. For Mercantilists man is an autonomous and self-interested creature, operating in an anarchic state system that seeks to gain hegemony by increasing power. Lastly, Marxism says man is malleable and corruptible and operates within an evil manifestation of capitalism known as the state, a strong focus is put on the class system (Gilpin,1987: 31). These underlying assumptions are the foundation of the three distinct paradigms through which the international political economy can be viewed.
The international political economy is the convergence of political and economic powers to produce a particular set of forces and dynamics in the world. The contemporary global system can be explained through three theoretical paradigms of Liberalism, Mercantilism, and Marxism. They are essential in understanding the characteristics of the economic system and the challenges it faces. This essay will explore the fundamental political and economic ideas or assumptions that underpin each of the key theoretical perspectives as well as explain what assumptions they make about ‘Man’ and ‘Nature’. In addition, exploration of these paradigms will be assisted with further examples, and institutions will be used to display an understanding of how the paradigms engage in the contemporary scene of the International Political Economy.
In 1994, Policymakers gathered at Bretton Woods in the USA to resolve two problems. Firstly, to prevent the Great Depression of the 1930s from ever happening again by enduring an open world trading system and global monetary system. Secondly, they needed to restructure Europe’s economics (Woods, 2011:326). In 1946, the first Bretton Woods institutions emerged. The International Monetary Fund provided emergency systems to states and created a stable exchange to help trade. The World Bank dealt with planning development paths and providing a place where private investment could step in to recuperate (Woods, 2011:327). Lastly, in 1948 the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs, later replaced by the World Trade Organisation, became a forum for developing countries to use collective bargaining power to negotiate trade liberalization and to counter the dominance of more established economies like the US (Woods, 2011: 327).
The Bretton Woods institutions predominantly advocate for policies aligned to liberal assumptions like cooperation and free trade. Although, if we take one institution, the WTO, and look at it from all three perspectives it will help to illustrate their differences. Multilateral agreements like those negotiated by the WTO are under threat in the contemporary world because of the slide to the right of more unilateral thinking. Mercantilism would see this as a way of allowing existing markets to move ahead and expand without restriction whilst liberalism might suggest that markets will take over from the WTO in order to find the best balance of trade. Marxism would argue that the negative impact of unilateralism will undermine multilateral agreements which protect developing countries and their economies. This leads us to the three key paradigms with specific moral and analytic stances on global economic relations. (Woods, 2011:332).
Emerging from the Enlightenment writings of Adam Smith, is an economic critique of the mercantilist practice in early modern Europe, Liberalism (Gilpin,1987:26). Liberal theory has two separate components, the political and the economic. For liberals a source of peaceful relations comes from trade and economic interaction, this is due to the mutual benefits and expanding independence which induces cooperative relationships (Gilpin, 1987: 31). The economy (market) dominates the political and the market should be left to sort itself out even when the political (the organized people) wants to challenge it. Under liberalism everyone can win, free trade and free flow of capital will shape government policies and the ‘invisible hand’ of competition will ensure order in the global market. Under free exchange, it is believed that individuals will be rewarded for their marginal productivity and overall contribution to society (Woods, 2011: 333).
Economic liberalism believes individuals are economic animals by nature and will pursue their interests in a world of scarcity and resource constraints. It argues that the world should be run on efficiency, to stimulate growth and that consumer choice markets should be protected from political interference (Gilpin, 1987: 26). There is the assumption that free trade and free flow of capital will ensure that investment will go to where it is most profitable (Woods, 2011: 332). They tend to focus on the realm in which nation-states show their peaceful, cooperative, and constructive natures through harmonious competition (Balaam & Dillman, 2011: 35). Political liberalism, on the other hand, is committed to individual equality and liberty (Gilpin, 1987: 26). In the international economy the individual is viewed as the main actor, a rational being who tries to maximize certain values at the lowest possible cost (Gilpin, 197: 31). Their self-interest allows for constructive, competitive engagement to take place (Balaam & Dillman, 2011: 29).
Mercantilism emphasizes one of the basic coercions of nation-states, to create and sustain power in order to protect national wealth and security (Balaam & Veseth, 2008: 22). It arises partly from the tendency of markets to concentrate wealth and establish dependency or power relations between strong and weak economies (Gilpin, 1987: 33). Power lies with those states that seek to maximize their wealth and independence, the most powerful states define the rules and sustain order through hegemony (Woods, 2011: 333). Economic activities should be secondary to the goal of the state (Gilpin, 1987: 31). Mercantilists do not focus on the individual and their choices but rather view the world economy as an area of inter-state competition. To remain competitive, states implement protectionist policies (limits on exports and imports like tariffs) and subsidies (Lim, 2014:34). This limitation generates trade surpluses which creates wealth and therefore power (Balaam & Veseth, 2008: 22). Mercantilists have a zero-sum world view, meaning there can only be one winner in the economic market (Balaam & Veseth, 2008: 23).
Man is viewed as an autonomous being who operates in a state that is molded through an inevitable result of the anarchic system. All mercantilists ascribe to national security, the dominance of the state, and military power in the functioning of the international system (Gilpin, 1987: 31). There are two strands of mercantilism that emerge, a defensive position known as ‘benign’ mercantilism focused on protecting the economy against external forces (Balaam & Veseth, 2008: 30) and a more aggressive strand known as ‘malevolent’ mercantilism a more intimidating version of economic warfare and expansionary policies (Gilpin, 1987: 32).
Gaining power and hegemony to maintain order is the main goal for mercantilists. Power determines the relationship between the market and authority. Those who exercise authority will derive power from three main sources, force, wealth, and ideas. In the political economy structural power, having the ability to influence how things will take place, and having control over the mode of production shaping frameworks within inter-state relations, and relative power, determining the surrounding structure of the relationship, are both exercised (Strange,1988: 24). Structural power creates the ordered state of nature which enables increased relative power over individuals producing hegemony. Mercantilism is generally cited as being the driving force behind colonialism and imperialism (Balaam & Veseth, 2008: 34). Robert Keohane illustrates how mercantilists view hegemonic stability and power by stating that the strongest, most well-ordered international regimes are a result of hegemonic structures of power dominated by a single country. A classic example of this is the eras of imperialism pax Britannica and pax Americana in which strong powers used coerciveness to gain hegemony and influence (Cox, 1981: 139).
The third paradigm is Marxism which views the world economy as an arena of competition amongst capitalists, workers, and social groups not among states. Capitalism is the driving force behind the constant class struggle between the oppressor and the oppressed (Woods, 2011: 333). The oppressors/capitalists own the trade and industry and the oppressed/working class are the cogs in the system. The mode of production is the basis of class power and so when capitalists seek to increase their profits it usually leads to the exploitation of the working class (Strange, 1988: 29). The capitalist system has been used to describe the imbalanced exchange between the core, industrialized countries, and the periphery, developing countries. Order is only achieved where capitalists succeed in obtaining the compliance of all others in the state. But, Marxists will argue that Capitalism is becoming increasingly unstable as demonstrated by the Global financial crisis of 2008 (Lim, 2014: 36).
Additionally, Marxism focuses on the structure of production. In this case, capitalists, and the state in which they operate, can use structural power to defend and strengthen the social and political institutions and legal administrations, making it tough for others to challenge its hegemony (Strange, 1988: 29). Class conflict drives social change and therefore, the more structural power gained, the more the working class is driven to revolution (Strange, 1988: 30). Marx understood capitalism as a necessary stage in human history, as it provided the social basis for the final stage of communism to succeed. (Lim, 2014: 64).
For the purpose of showing the differences between the three perspectives and understanding them in a more contemporary world, the 2011 military intervention in Libya will be investigated from each perspective respectively. This example demonstrates how the global balance of forces allows powerful military interests to manipulate international systems, like the UN Security Council, to create a pretext for violating the sovereignty of member states in pursuit of their own economic and political interests. It shows where economic and political interests subvert international law and international agreements, allowing foreign powers, in this case, the US and NATO, to pursue their military interests. Owing to oil being central to the invasion of Libya it points also to how militarily commandeering the economic assets of another country is part of the International Political Economy.
On the 17th of February 2011, the peaceful protests against the rule of Qaddafi began advocating for democratic change and respect for human rights. The unarmed demonstrators were met with violent shutdowns by the Libyan authorities and the situation turned into a mass revolt. Within a few weeks, the demonstrators started an armed rebellion and established a transitional national council. The response from the government was to push back on areas now under control by the rebels (Ulfstein & Christiansen, 2013:159). The UN Security Council adopted Resolution 1973 permitting member states to protect Libyan civilians. Resolution 1973 represents the first mandate by the Security Council for a military intervention based on the responsibility to protect against the request of a functioning government (Ulfstein & Christiansen, 2013:161).
Disagreement emerged about the Resolution and concerns were raised about military overreaches, like whether or not the bombing carried out by NATO and its allies on Qaddafi’s forces was within the mandate provided. By June 2011 NATO attacks had weakened Qaddafi’s forces (Siebens & Case, 2012: 20). In October, a US predator drone and French warplane attacked a convoy attempting to assist Qaddafi’s escape. However, the strikes failed to kill him, and he managed to get away. He was later caught by a group of rebels who filmed him being beaten up and then executing him as he tried to surrender. The success of the anti-Qaddafi rebels in 2011 must be largely attributed to NATO air power, it essentially acted as the air force for rebel troops. The international intervention in Libya was more concerned with facilitating the overthrow of Qaddafi’s government than preventing a humanitarian crisis (Siebens & Case, 2012: 21).
Seen through the lens of Liberalism, the weakening of the Libyan state would be viewed as a positive outcome (Woods, 2011: 333). The weakened state opened up the economy, allowing the market to determine the price of assets and goods, aligning with the liberalist assertion that market forces should be left to operate without interference. The state could become more cooperative and trade relations could take place with the West, since Qaddafi was dead, they would no longer have to face the “tyrant” that had ruled Libya and threatened their hegemony.
This same event can be looked at from a mercantilist perspective. Mercantilists focus on where their power lies with other states and how they seek to maximize their wealth and independence (Woods, 2011: 333). Therefore, they would have viewed the regime change positively. A post-Qaddafi Libya, more under the control of NATO and its allies, would be more likely to negotiate terms of inter-state trade that would benefit the powerful amongst the mercantilists. Qaddafi was able to use the wealth generated by the resources in Libya to somewhat isolate Libya from the rest of the world economy. While he maintained a strong state, with strong control over the economy, he refused to cooperate with the global economy in a manner that made it easy for the established dominant states to take advantage. For Mercantilists the regime change might have been an opportunity to change the economic policies of the country and allow easier access and more opportunities for inter-state trade. Maybe, in the short term, the instability may have been seen as a concern, but with an eye on medium-term recovery and the emergence of new state order, the longer-term outlook would have been seen as potentially lucrative.
Marxists did understand that capitalism was necessary for the final stage of communism to prosper (Lim, 2014: 64). Marxists look at things through a class lens and so it is necessary to see how the Libyan conflict impacted each layer differently. This is a representation of what the classes may have experienced. At the level of the capitalist, the ones who own the means of production, the Libyan invasion shifted the ownership of assets from one part of the capitalist class to another. Assets, in this case, would be the oil fields and much of the other extractive and industrial assets, including the land that was taken in Libya. They shifted Qaddafi, his family, and others who benefited from their role in society to new owners who divided up the spoils of the war.
The middle classes would have adjusted to the new conditions. They were initially affected by the economic downturn and unpredictability that the invasion and civil war brought but would have started stabilizing as the Libyan economy recovered a bit. The poor and working-class bear the brunt of it, victims of the upsurge in violence on all sides were forced into armies and insurgency movements without much to say about it. The closing and damaging of industries due to the violence meant jobs were lost. They remained the marginalized victims in a system where they were exploited and oppressed.
Each of the three paradigms interprets and explains the convergence of political and economic power in a distinct way. The use of the Libyan invasion example, as well as the WTO, showed just how differently each perspective interprets the same circumstances through applying their respective assumptions. Liberalists assume that man is a rational being who maximizes value at the lowest possible cost while ensuring minimal state intervention. For Mercantilists man is an autonomous and self-interested creature, operating in an anarchic state system that seeks to gain hegemony by increasing power. Lastly, Marxism says man is malleable and corruptible and operates within an evil manifestation of capitalism known as the state, a strong focus is put on the class system (Gilpin,1987: 31). These underlying assumptions are the foundation of the three distinct paradigms through which the international political economy can be viewed.
The world has different kinds of people and they hold varying views and have different attitudes. The outlook that the person has determines how he will react to the views and behaviours of other people. It will also influence the level of tolerance that a person has.
One of the types of people is the liberal person. This essay will set out to define who a liberal person is. It will engage in a detailed discussion of some of the characteristics that this person has and the values that he holds.
The liberal person welcomes diversity in life. He understands that the world is made up of people of different races and cultures. He does not fear differences but instead appreciates it. The liberal person is of the opinion that respect should be accorded to the different beliefs that people have.
In addition to this, individuals should have the freedom to express their non-traditional views. Because of these attitudes, the liberal person shows a great amount of tolerance for people from different cultural backgrounds and beliefs.
A liberal person has an open attitude and he is not tied down by tradition. When the person encounters views that are different from the normal ones, he does not reject them immediately. As such, when a new idea is presented, the liberal will not react rigidly.
Instead, he is open to the strange views and gives them the necessary consideration. As a result, the liberal person gains a lot of new knowledge since he is willing to learn even from views he does not necessarily endorse. His accommodative nature opens him up to new realities making his life rich in experiences.
Change is one of the realities that the liberal person embraces. He appreciates that the world is in a constant state of change and people must keep on adapting themselves as the world around them changes. He does not see change as something that should be resisted against and generally avoided.
The liberal welcomes change in both the society and in his personal life. He is likely to support progressive reforms even when others are holding on to the traditional views or ways of doing things.
The liberal person shows a lot of concern for the welfare of other people. He cares about the health, livelihood, and social well-being of the members of the society.
For this reason, the liberal person will in most times support greater assistance to the needy members of the society and reduced charges on essential services such as healthcare. For the liberal person, government programs designed to take care of the social welfare of the citizens are very desirable. The government which runs such programs is the most beneficial for the entire society.
The liberal person greatly values the freedoms of the individual. For this person, the liberties of the individual are of great importance and the government should always protect them. At the same time, each person should respect the individual rights and liberties of other people and avoid imposing on them.
These beliefs explain why the liberal person thinks that people should be allowed to make their own decisions on issues such as abortion. To ensure that the personal freedoms are always guaranteed, the liberal person supports great government power to protect the freedoms of citizens.
Objectivism is another virtue that the liberal person upholds. For him, no doctrine or ideology is right for every situation. As such, the liberal person will examine each situation in a fair manner. He will not look at the issue through the lens of religion or political ideology.
By adopting this subjective approach, the liberal person will be able to act in a just and fair manner since each case will be judged based on its merits. The liberal person is not influenced by the opinions of other people who might have bias on an issue.
The liberal person has a strong believe in the ability of the government and because of this, he supports domestic government interventions. This is especially true in democratic countries where the people have empowered the government through the electoral process.
For the liberal person, the government has the power needed to act in the interest of the individual. To him, the society needs the government’s hand to regulate institutions such as the market and big corporation. Through this government intervention, people are protected from any exploitation that big corporations might want to engage in.
Having many liberal people might be a good thing for the society. Such people will support progress and reform in the country. They will not discriminate against people who have different views, ideologies, or traditions. Instead, they will show great tolerance and coexist with them in a harmonious way.
In a world that is becoming very multicultural, the liberal person is the most desirable person. The liberal view of government and society will ensure that that everyone is treated in a fair and just manner.
Throughout world history, many attempts in terms of establishing international peace have already been made, showing no measurable success in the present moment. Most of these approaches, despite major discrepancies in terms of action plans, concern the idea of reducing international conflicts and encouraging collaboration between nations and state leaders (Wendt, 1992). Thus, the fundamentalists of various social structure theories have in common more than they expect, trying to achieve the best possible outcome for the world citizens. As a result of continuous wars and political games, world leaders decided to do their best in order to avoid such behavioral patterns in future political relations (Olson, 1971). It goes without saying that one of the most successful means of achieving this would be to establish a working framework of international cooperation, i.e., implement the fundamentals of liberalism.
Although this idea seems to be the only right choice to make, its execution in the nearest future seems rather utopian. One of the major pitfalls standing in the way to achieve this relationship pattern is a common misconception of how politics work in the first place. Besides being a series of algorithms aimed at satisfying national and individual needs, the political system is a concept-driven by humans who interact according to certain patterns of social behavior. Thus, when talking about liberalism, it is important to take into account that international cooperation implies independent contributions of the states in order to maintain peace and supply equality (Olson, 1971). However, on the level of separate individuals in power, especially those of the leading states, the idea of giving something for the sake of abstract notion of peace seems unfair, creating a foundation for conflict. Hence, taking everything into consideration, it might be concluded that whereas liberalism and cooperation are, by all means, beneficial for the future world community development, today’s political power is not ready to refrain from conflict for the sake of peace.
References
Olson, M. (1971). Increasing the incentives for international cooperation. International Organization, 25(40), 866-874.
Wendt, A. (1992). Anarchy is what states make of it: the social construction of power politics. International Organization, 46(2), 391-425.
The frames or set paths for interpreting information are the central component of any dominant racial ideology. The four frames, according to Bonilla-Silva (2006), are abstract liberalism, naturalization, cultural racism, and minimization of racism. People use the frames to filter any racial issues and, as a result, explain racial phenomena in a predictable manner. This paper discusses abstract liberalism, as it is considered the most important among other frames and the hardest to explain.
Discussion
Bonilla-Silva states that the abstract liberalism frame entails combining notions associated with political liberalism and economic liberalism to describe racial issues in an abstract fashion (Bonilla-Silva, 2006, p. 56). He adds that white people may look “rational” and even “moral” despite rejecting ways to deal with the actual racial disparity by framing race-related issues in the language of liberalism (Bonilla-Silva, 2006, p. 56). The main part of abstract liberalism is ‘equal opportunity,’ which is defined as viewing everyone as an individual with options and applying liberal ideas to whites’ freedom (Bonilla-Silva, 2006). This assertion entails disregarding the numerous institutional and state-sponsored activities that underpin segregation and being indifferent to the detrimental repercussions of these actions (Bonilla-Silva, 2006). Others consider it unjust when minorities are considered to be granted an advantage, no matter how tiny.
Conclusion
Abstract liberalism can be seen when the fact that racial minorities are significantly underrepresented in most social institutions is often ignored in society. In other words, this is the abstract application of the concept of ‘equal opportunity.’ One of the brightest examples can be the education system. We can witness many universities and programs say they want their classes to be more racially diverse. However, white instructors have unjustifiably low expectations for kids of race, viewing them as underachievers whose flaws are clearly related to familial deficiencies and dysfunctions. Thus, it can be clearly seen that racism takes place under different frames, which often misrepresent society.
Reference
Bonilla-Silva, E. (2006). Racism without racism: Color-blind racism and the persistence of racial inequity in the United States. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Human development is a continuum that calls for educationists to focus on ideas and skills that can help people become better members of society. A holistic approach is critical since it ensures that beneficiaries are able to acquire powerful concepts that influence their moral, physical, mental, ethical, and emotional attributes. Contemporary religious education is an important area of study that guides young people to acquire content by dealing with provocative questions (Lee, 2018). Such attributes guide them to consider their purposes in life, develop unique worldviews, focus on the concept of ultimate reality, and be ready to differentiate what is wrong from right. The provision of contemporary religious education becomes a necessity and guide and ensures that more people are in a position to transform their lives.
Liberal arts is a broad area of study that focuses on different fields, including psychology, theater arts, history, communication, and economics. The ultimate aim of this discipline is to expand learners’ knowledge in such a way that they can engage in critical thinking, develop relevant competencies, and improve their technical abilities. The emerging insights would be applied in different areas of life to guide decision-making and ensure that the beneficiary is capable of recording meaningful progress (Ghiloni, 2019). The nature of this field explains why it remains practical and applicable in a wide range of settings.
The definition of these two areas of study could explain why there is a need for educationists and stakeholders to promote a positive or proper relationship. Contemporary religious education emerges as a dynamic field that is capable of guiding the targeted learners to develop theoretical knowledge. They will acquire additional traits that guide them to remain responsible and have a strong relationship with God (Lee, 2018). Consequently, they will acquire practical ideas for developing a powerful philosophy of life. The insights would make it easier for them to develop a sense of stability and promote cohesion with other members of the wider society.
The relationship between contemporary religious education and liberal arts guides the involved educationists and curriculum developers to promote emerging insights that can inform desirable behavior. People will be keen to relate to the surrounding environment in a positive manner and solve most of the recorded challenges (Ghiloni, 2019). Additionally, the majority of them would be willing to transform their lives in a positive manner. From a liberal perspective, the beneficiaries will acquire timely ideas that might not be directly linked to their religious faiths but be keen to improve their life experiences.
The emerging evidence explains why there is a need for colleges and other institutions of higher learning to provide religious education from the lens of liberal arts. Specifically, they would be keen to improve their abilities and consider how they can acquire additional insights to foster personal development. They will improve their moral, social, and spiritual viewpoints (Ghiloni, 2019). The emerging insights will guide them to challenge most of the recorded stereotypes and be ready to promote cohesion. Such attributes will make it easier for them to remain involved and pursue a purpose that is in tandem with their wider objectives or goals in life.
By teaching this field as a liberal art, chances are high that more people will avoid the problematic issues associated with religion. Specifically, the emerging concepts would make it easier for professionals to pursue their lives from an informed perspective without grounding their views on the views of religious life. A moral or ethical foundation will emerge that is capable of helping them address most of the existing challenges in life (Ghiloni, 2019). They will find it easier to respect divergent views while focusing on their primary goals.
This analysis reveals that a unique relationship exists between contemporary religious education and liberal arts. Specifically, religious education is a form of liberal arts intended to widen people’s scope or understanding of the world around them. The emerging concepts make it easier for them to think critically, appreciate diversity, and lead high-quality and contented lives. The promoted religious theoretical frameworks would guide them to solve emerging challenges, relate with others positively, and develop a sense of responsibility in the wider society (Lee, 2018). By promoting this kind of relationship, chances are high that more people will become knowledgeable, appreciate religious ideas, and be ready to apply them for the betterment of their life experiences. Consequently, the promoted relationship will deliver a sense of belonging, improve people’s ethical standards, and maximize happiness.
This essay looks at the background to liberal theories, especially in relation to main theoretical rival, Realism, before examining in detail the doctrine of humanitarian interventionism, so often, associated with liberalist theories, and criticisms from, among others, Noam Chomsky, who see it as little more than the continuation of Western-style ‘imperialism’.
In recent years, in the field of International Relations studies, as well as in the broader study of the Social Sciences, a range of new theories have emerged to challenge the ‘foundationalist’ school of thought, in which traditional ideas, such as Realism and Liberalism, feature as main components’.
These new theories, which include, ‘Post-Modernism’ and ‘Social Constructivism’, however, are most often used as a means for criticizing ‘foundationalist’ or ‘traditionalist’ theories, rather than (as traditional theirs are said to do), form firm criteria for analysing ‘real world’ international relations, between nation-states.
In this, traditional theories such as Liberal Internationalism, which forms the basis of discussion in this essay, have also undergone a revival; particularly since the end of the Cold War, when with the failure of the leading traditional theory, that is, ‘Realism’ to predict the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, often seen as the symbolic event marking the Cold War’s end, led to a revival of its main rival, ‘Liberalism.’ Ironically, it was at the expense of Liberalism, that Realism arose earlier in the twentieth century, largely in the failure of the Liberalist project, after the First World War, and the inevitable onset of the Second World War.
In the study of International Relations theories, this fall of Liberalism and rise of Realism was most associated with the work of E.H. Carr’s 1939, classic text The Twenty Year Crisis (Cambridge, 2001).
This inter-war period, might also be seen as a time when ‘Imperialism’, reached its high point, that is, when the world’s major powers, mainly the United States and the UK, both, not coincidently, victors in the First World War, looked first, to further their own interests, over what was billed as the championing of self-determination and liberalism, over the old realist ideas of self-interest and what might be termed ‘might is right’.
While, the United States at this time, stood as the champion of anti-imperialism’, this stance, right throughout the United States’ existence, has served only to mask its own imperialistic ambitions, notably, as Alex Callinicos, in his Imperialism and Global Political Economy (Cambridge, 2009), states, in the early twentieth century and the neo-conservative policies under the presidency of George Bush Jnr.
Indeed, for many, the Liberalist project died with the failure of the League of nations, set up in 1919, and supposedly the international body, through which the much-trumpeted ‘new world order’ would come into being. The ideas behind the League however, did not die out entirely, and indeed, were in some ways revived and retried, in the early years marking the end of the Second World War in 1945, through the creation of the United Nations in 1949.
As mentioned however, Liberalism’s revival did not take place at the same time, but rather developed at a time, when in the West, at least, the collapse of Communism throughout Eastern Europe, was attributed to the triumph of Western values, and not, as argued since, largely, the result of the internal problems underpinning Socialism, as practiced in the former Soviet Union.
In the new wave of optimism this created among Western Powers, a new doctrine, to replace the old Cold War ideologies, arose, namely, championing the idea of ‘humanitarian intervention’, as part of creating a new ‘Liberalised’ way of solving international crises’ and dealing with the new style of intra-state’ conflicts that marked the end of the Cold War, was forwarded.
This, in essence, championed ‘human rights’ issues, over and above traditional boundaries where ‘sovereignty’ lay alone with a ‘nation state’, and its right to act as it so willed within its set borders.
In the eyes of those who oppose this idea however, one major point of argument raised, is that, whatever ideals are championed, that in practice the right to intervene in another state’s affairs, amounts to nothing more than the West’s renewed pursuit of ‘Imperialism’, especially, as practiced during its height, in the nineteenth century.
Here, often, the right to intervene and then govern foreign territories was based on arguments of ‘civilization’ and the duty of Western powers to bring good government to uncivilized countries. A major champion of this view is the scholar Noam Chomsky, who has attacked the policy of humanitarian intervention from the beginning of the early 1990s, and the first test case of its kind, in the breakdown of the former communist Yugoslavia, in the Balkans.
Chomsky, saw this interference, and the use of the West’s combined military might, supposedly to end the ‘genocide’ taking place there between the warring factions, as based on the false pretence of ‘humanitarianism’, its real agenda, to enforce Westernized’ values and extend the West’s powerbase in Central Europe. As it stands today, the debate concerning the West’s true intentions extends to the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 and the invasions of Iraq, in 1991 and 2005.
Chomsky’s continued considerable influence, in asserting his position as exposing the hypocrisy at the heart of the humanitarian argument, shows how, outside those states which stand opposed to Western interference, the doctrine is a controversial one, even within, western circles.
This highlights then, how contrary to what supporters of ‘humanitarian interventionism’, such as United States President during the 1990s, Bill Clinton, and UK Prime Minister, Tony Blair, at the time of the Kosovo intervention in 1999, say, that the doctrine represents a ‘moral stand’ and a refusal on behalf of Western governments to stand aside while governments around the world abuse human rights, that for those who stand against this position, the arguments hinge not on issues of liberal morality, but old-fashioned means for establishing ‘imperialist’ designs on the non-westernized world.
This view, in particular, finds support among those who opposed the recent Iraq and Afghanistan invasions, and consequently, for those, holding this opinion, liberalist arguments, are more than complicit, but lead the way in how the West’s international relations policies of today, are no different from those practiced during the height of ‘imperialism’.
To conclude, therefore, as does, the scholar, Alex Callinicos, in his recent study, Imperialism and Global Political Economy (Cambridge, 2009), which especially focuses on the United States, as chief among these complicit Western Powers ‘imperialism is far from dead.’
That is to say, the ideas put forward by supporters of humanitarian interventionism, that the principle underlying it, that is, the sovereignty of human rights, as belonging to a new age, or new world order, one not beholden to respect nation-state borders, that until now, remained sovereign, remains hugely contested.
That whether these ideas are cloaked in liberalist rhetoric or not, and regardless of their legitimization through international bodies such as the United Nations, that the underlying principles remain profoundly Realist, and represent only what the Great Powers in the West, have always sought, their increased power throughout the sphere of international relations.
Works Cited
Callinicos, A., Imperialism and Global Political Economy (Cambridge, 2009).
Carr, E.H., The Twenty Year Crisis: 1919-1939: An Introduction to the Study of International Relations (Palgrave Macmillan, 1939, 2001).
The ideology of modern liberalism is a recent thought which has been developed by borrowing views and ideas from other theories to form a huge body of ideology from the works of renounced scholars and philosophers such as Theodore Roosevelt, J.F Kennedy, Woodrow Wilson and Lyndon Johnson.
These people came up with powerful theories which have been incorporated together to form the ideology of modern liberalism. This ideology addresses issues like government entitlements like health care, education, abortion, voting and gay rights. Modern liberalism borrows ideas from several sources.
According to the works of Roskin (2009) the modern liberation ideology combines both social liberalism and progressivism to meet the needs of the society and the economy. It is therefore the duty of the federal government to ensure that high level of employment are maintained, to oversee the life and labor standards of its citizens as well as establishing universal social security patterns and to regulate business competition methods within the state (Roskin, 2009).
Arthur Schlesinger in 1956 stated that the United States encompasses a laissez-faire and government form which aimed at achieving equal opportunities for every person, but the means employed to achieve this vary under different circumstances. He also pointed out that the concept liberalism has varying interpretations as its application is different in various parts of the globe.
In Europe, it is referred to as classical liberalism, whereby it is characterized by features of restricted government and laissez-faire economy (Heywood, 1998). American liberalists are described as receptive to change and new ideas as they accept ideas from science such as evolution that are by conservatives (Roskin, 2009).
Liberalism is against socialism, the ownership of distribution and ownership means, as they belief that political opposition basses and freedom cannot survive if all power was vested on the state. If the there can be obtained equal and wide variety of opportunities got from mixed enterprises, there would be no need to have oppressing and rigid bureaucracy. They argue further that if the available markets were regulated efficiently there could be no need for the central control and the top-down programs because they can offer better solutions.
According to the argument which was presented by Paul Krugman, there should be a high degree of efficiency in state owned corporations such as health, education, security and so on. He also supported the monetary policy, saying it approaches the policy of stabilization, which is to give demand in a way it does not disrupt resource allocation. Thomas Friedman was in unison with these ideas especially the one regarding to free trade.
He believed that through its application, the gap between the rich and the poor will decrease. He believed that the role of the state is to act as a major splitting point among liberalist. Defining the state’s growth has significant importance to modern liberalism. Liberal constitutions create constraints on power of a public official, government branch and the whole state as well (Roskin, 2009).
According to the theory of liberal philosophy, there exist five different categories of morality. The first category is concerned with fairness and promotion mainly emphasizing on empathy. The second category is concerned with helping the needy and nurturing the spirit of good among all the individuals in the society.
The third category is concerned with the protection of those people who are defenseless. The fourth category is concerned with the fulfillment of one`s desires in life by achieving his/her objectives in life and living life to the fullest. The fifth category is concerned with self caring, an important ideology since this is where the foundation of caring for others is built on (Schlesinger, 1956).
Fascism
Fascism is a political ideology where leadership of a state is vested under one individual or a group of individuals. This ideology of was founded during the First World War in Italy by leaders of trade unions together with political leaders to form the political right wing. Fascists feel like the economic, social and political sectors of a state should be organized in a corporatist manner.
Under fascism, the government system is characterized by having a tyrant as the President, use of fear in order to undermine opposition in all sector of the Economy. It has heavily borrowed for the social ideologies that were present during the French Revolution as well as the slogan “Equality, Liberty, and Fraternity”.
The ideology believes that a nation should be viewed as one huge family under a central leadership. The society should have a common feature of identification and have love for their nation to the extent that they can go to war to protect their country.
Democracy is viewed as a setback to social and economic development of the society. Under this system all of the important sectors of the economy are owned by the state. The state makes all the laws and in most cases it cannot be questioned on the decisions it makes.
Armed violence and combat are the main elements in the running of government affairs which aim at instilling discipline and shaping the character of citizens with the help of the army. According to fascists war, violence and aggression is viewed as means of creating the spirit of togetherness among the citizens of the nation and at the same time they gain respect from other nations. They argue that the state should create and maintain a strong hold on its citizens (Roskin, 2009).
Fascism does not embrace equity, rationalism or the right to own property by individuals. They are against liberalism since they feel that it mainly concentrates on economic development. This ideology is also against the concept of social stratification into classes since individuals who are stable economically might become the political leaders of the society even though they are not eligible for that position.
Leadership should only fall in the hand of the elite people in the military who will rule with a strong hand, maintain the sovereignty of the state and organize the factors of production in the best way possible to maximize production of goods and services within the country (Schlesinger, 1956).
Conclusion
Modern Liberalism would suit the United States government in the various realms that exist in the society. Views from this ideology that are essential in attaining and maintaining high standard political, social and economic aspects of the nation should be adopted by the policy makers of the government.
Liberalism has proved to be very adaptive to the rapidly progressive world. The United States government has citizens that are of diverse racial origins, and to integrate them into one unified population; it needs to borrow some concepts from the ideology of liberalism. The policy of democracy that is the core principle of the government is addressed as a major aspect of liberalism. It is best for the government not to undermine its principles that it stands for.
References
Heywood, A. (1998). Political Ideologies. An Introduction. Houndmills. Macmillan Press. Pp54-93.
Roskin, G. Cord, L. Medeiros, A. James. J & Walter .S. (2009). Political Science. An Introduction (11th Ed.). New York. Longman
Schlesinger, A. (1956). Liberalism in America: A Note for Europeans: The Politics of Hope. Boston: Riverside Press