Thomas Paine revealed a number of liberal ideas in his work “Common Sense”. He considered the society as it was in his lifetime. He traced the development of the western society throughout centuries.
He revealed wrongs of that society. He also suggested a specific way to develop. He outlined major concepts necessary for the rightful society. It is necessary to note that Paine provided a lot of liberal ideas, but he also remained conservative in some points.
All People Are Equal
One of major liberal ideas introduced in the work is the idea of equality. Thus, Paine notes that “[m]ankind being originally equals in the order of creation” could not follow rules based on the principle of inequality (Paine, 2011, n.p.). This is one of the central principles of liberals. Liberals have postulated that people are created equal and they must share equal opportunities.
Paine mentions the royal family and notes that the very existence of the king in the society is a sign of its being wrongful. Paine claims that “no one by birth could have a right to set up his own family in perpetual preference to all others for ever” (Paine, 2011, n.p.).
The author notes that some people deserve a greater degree of honor for some deeds. However, this has nothing to do with the inherited right to enjoy such honor. This belief that all people are created equal makes the work liberal.
People Should Elect Their Rulers
One more liberal idea revealed in the work is that people should elect their rulers. Paine states that societies cannot be entrusted to a person or a group of people according to the rules of heredity. The author notes that this leads to corruption and usurpation of power. Thus, people who introduce rules should be chosen by the society.
These people should be representatives of many groups of the society. Again, this is one of central arguments of liberals who believe that people have the capacity to regulate their lives. In other words, people are free from any outside authority as the rules imposed are created by those who reveal the will of these people.
Remarkably, Paine notes that people should elect their rulers quite often and those elected can have the chance to return into the society to understand the needs of people. According to Paine, this “frequent interchange will establish a common interest with every part of the community” (Paine, 2011, n.p.). Admittedly, this can also be qualified as a liberal idea.
A Conservative Idea
However, the idea of certain governance is still conservative. Thus, liberals believe people should be free from any restrictions as any individual should decide for himherself what is right. At the same time, Paine claims that people tend to live in societies as they cannot live in isolation.
Paine also admits that there is “the necessity of establishing some form of government to supply the defect of moral virtue” (Paine, 2011, n.p.). This idea can be qualified as “classical conservative” as conservative believe people cannot be free from regulations.
Conclusion
To sum up, it is possible to note that Paine reveals many liberal ideas in his work. Thus, he states that all people are equal and there can be no hereditary authority. The thinker also claims that people should select those who impose regulations. At the same time, Paine remains conservative in certain points. Thus, he claims that people still need some regulations and governing bodies which can be qualified as a conservative idea.
Liberalism is a social or political philosophy that promotes and advocates the freedom of an individual. In his work, John Rawls, a famous philosopher, presents justice as equality among individuals. Rawls insists that the right is above over the good.
However, even if the right has higher priority, it does not exactly mean that the good should always be ignored. Rawls developed a concept that citizens need some basic rights, such as income wealth and liberties. According to Rawls, some of the good things are exceptions as the society remains neutral and retains the values of justice.
Tolerance and mutual trust are among the measures that retain harmony among the citizens. However, in his study, John Rawls states that good and right are complementary as they both rely on each other in some way.
Weaknesses
Sometimes, political concepts that are adapted may not be in line with a culture that certain societies practice. Here, political liberalism fails to incorporate religious beliefs that the members of a society may hold.
Liberalism suffers another drawback as it is hard to have a just society of free and equal citizens, profoundly divided by reasonable religious, philosophical and moral doctrines (Rawls 15).
Also, liberalism relies on an abstract conception of the person and uses individualist criteria, not the social ones (Rawls 15).
Strengths
According to Rawls, one of the major strengths is that a political conception of justice will generate its own support under favorable circumstances, and the institution, to which it leads, will be self-enforcing. In such a case, a stable social cooperation rests on the fact that most citizens accept the political order as legitimate (Davion and Wolf 8).
In such circumstances, they can freely and willingly support a liberal democratic regime governed by a public conception of justice and fairness (Davion and Wolf 8).
Rawls states that political culture of a democratic society that has been working reasonably well during a considerable period normally contains, at least implicitly, certain fundamental intuitive ideas from which it is possible to work out a political conception of justice suitable for a constitutional regime (Davion and Wolf 5).
According to Armbrüster, liberalism is concerned with securing a fair distribution of freedom. It endorses redistribution of wealth and, as an institutional system, secures the freedom to live a life which individuals should value (Armbrüster 6).
Liberalism signifies confidence in the ability of a government to provide the means not only for procedural justice but also for wealth distribution to secure (Armbrüster 7).
Conclusion
Critics of political liberalism have represented the changes in Rawls’ view as a kind of a philosophical loss (Davion and Wolf 10). Others have charged Rawls’ work on a kind of “justfactory schizophrenia” because various citizens justifiably accept a liberal conception of justice for quite different reasons thus they are expected to apply for different normative standards in their personal and public lives (Davion and Wolf 8).
Work Cited
Armbrüster, Thomas. Management and Organization in Germany. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd, 2005. Print.
Davion, Victoria, and Clark Wolf. The Idea of a Political Liberalism: Essays on Rawls. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2000. Print.
Rawls, John. Political Liberalism. United States: Columbia University Press, 2005. Print.
John Rawl’s ideas about liberalism are influenced by the concept of social rules. These rules are formulated by different people or groups to come up with agreements. Rawl argues that these parties regard wealth and income creation as opportunities which encourage progressive social collaboration.
The participants involved help one another meet their mutual interests and goals. Rawl’s arguments are correct because social rules apply differently to different societies depending on their ways of lives.
Rawl argues that liberalism brings about social justice. He further stresses that people follow rules they form for their own benefit.
Rules of justice guide people on how ownership and distribution of social goods happen within a society. These rules are not meant to protect natural rights or rights given to humanity by God. The rules only look at how resources that exist in the society are to be shared based on people’s agreements.
The rules of justice as propounded by Rawl present a true picture of complex attitudes that influence people’s views. His argument is correct because most rules are formed by humans.
Only humans can decide how fair or unfair the rules are depending on their experiences. Rawl’s ideas advance the ideals of democracy which help societies progress.
Rawl’s philosophy on social and economic equalities is credible. The philosophy talks about formal equality before the law without discrimination. However, the theory does not adequately address the issue of historical discrimination that denies people equal access to social and economic opportunities.
Rawl proposes good ideas but does not offer solutions that can eliminate economic and social inequalities. Rawl also fails to show the method that can effectively distribute economic and social resources equitably.
Rawl’s philosophy is idealistic and cannot be a solution for all issues that relate to social and economic inequality. Most societies in the world do not have economic or social equality because of different reasons.
There is a small section of people within a given society who influence how rules are made. Rawl assumes that rules of ownership and distribution of resources are made by people living within a particular society.
This assumption is incorrect because the people that have power within a society have a big influence on how social and economic rules are enforced. Rawl further assumes that making people acquire skills and knowledge through education eliminates inequality.
Some societies have high literacy rates in their adult populations yet they still experience social and economic inequalities. The increase in the number of skilled and educated people does not always eliminate economic and social inequalities.
In conclusion, Rawl’s philosophy has weight. The contribution that members of a given society have in forming rules that decide how social and economic resources are distributed improves living standards for all. Rawl however does not fully address modern problems that arise out of unequal distribution of wealth and resources.
Discrimination in the modern world has reduced substantially yet social and economic inequalities still persist. Liberalism does not offer practical solutions that can eliminate problems caused by economic and social inequalities in many societies.
Some societies have their economies controlled by a few people who are not always willing to allow the majority to get access to resources. Modern societies have not yet found solutions to the problems of inequality that many people face.
Anarchy refers to the state of lawlessness in a given society. International relations refer to the relations between and among societies, management of relations, and regulations governing the relations.
International relations’ theories have been of great concern because of their impact in different societies.
Contrasting The Theories
The theories have different views of explaining liberalism with regard to peace.
Kenneth Oye’s game theory
In his theory, he wanted to understand the reasons why cooperation exists in some lawless societies at some instances and do not exist in others. In the attempt to find out the answers, he came up with two simpler questions which attempted to find out appropriate ways that the lawless societies may exploit in their attempts to enhance the existence of cooperation, and to establish the conditions that may enhance the existence of cooperation in societies.
The structure of payoff, the future of the shadows, and the players’ numbers are the factors that affect existence of cooperation in states that are afflicted by anarchy. He came up with strategies to address the three factors.
As regards the payoff structure, certain strategies to be employed included the harmonizing of ideas, perceptions, attitudes, and interests of the members of the society in a bid to have an appropriate structured payment and norms related to the payment.
In order to increase the future of the shadows, strategies created included the prior definition of cooperation, norms, and mechanisms that enhance cooperation. Concerning the number of players, the strategies integrated by Kenneth Oye included having an appropriate number of players, collective bargaining, and focusing on the common interests of the members.
Robert Keohane’s liberal institutionalism theory
The theory postulates that there is a dire need for the institutions to collaborate in order to enhance cooperation and maintain peace in a society. Keohane argued that cooperation may be enhanced through enhancing mutuality of interest, enhancing the shadow of the future, and having an appropriate number of players with similar strategies.
Keohane argues that peace, security, and cooperation in societies can be realized when institutions are considered as interdependent. He added that interdependence should be valued because states exist as chains of units of communities and societies that play a very important role in Industrial relations.
Michael Doyle’s liberal theory
He emphasized on Kant’s theory of perceptual peace which advances the concept that peace leads to quality and peaceful relations. He argued that peace among liberal democracies cannot be dismissed as a byproduct of strategic alliances. The theory acknowledges wishful thinking, collective bargaining, and cooperation which may be enhanced through promoting mutuality of interests, enhancing the shadow of the future, and having an appropriate number of players with similar strategies.
Comparison Of The Theories
The three theories have some similarities which include:
Emphasis on equity
These theories focus on the need for justice when implementing peace. The theories have norms and structures that are free from arbitrary decisions, discrimination, and favoritism. The norms secure mutual relations among the members of a society.
Effective communication
The theories state that there is need for effective communication to enhance the understanding of concepts by the members of the society. Effective communication enhances mutual understanding and eases resolution of conflicts.
Emphasis on peace
The theories focus on peace hence enhancing smooth settlement of disputes while harmonizing relationships. They address disputes related to dissatisfaction, salaries, wages, working hours, and other benefits like bonuses. They resolve the disputes by peacefully addressing all the issues that can bring disputes.
Respect and trust
The theories value trust and respect. Members recognize that there are areas of commonalities and areas of differences amongst themselves in the society. They respect each other’s interests in their perceptions, ideologies, and any other contributions.
Individual freedom
Members of a society have a dire right to participate fully in the decisions that affect them. All members must be heard in the decision making process.
Conclusion
All the theories are very important for peaceful coexistence of people in any society. Members of every society should attempt to understand the theories and implement them appropriately.
The book “Liberal Way of War” was written by Dillon and Reid Foucault theorists of global security. The book is important as it tries to develop Foucault’s bio-political criticism of the “liberal way of war”. The authors also seek to explore the relationship between conception of bio-politics by Foucault and comprehension of international politics and peace in modern day.
First, they claim to Foucault for international age by developing his bio-political framework of analysis of bio-politics to theorize the “liberal way of war”.
They perform this by beginning with an inquiry of what happens to power and politics when it takes human life as its referent point. They then go on to ask what becomes to that bio-political regime of power thus established when the life it assumes as its referent object is informationalized (Dillon 149).
Understanding Liberal War
The book makes important reading for those trying to understand the shift from modernist or rationalistic discourses of global security to post-modern, post political international security.
It gives differing but important insights into the blurring of traditional categories of global politics, global law and understandings of war and politics. It draws out how war problems and interventions shape around protection, or securing, of life that has become dangerous, both to itself and to others.
The book suggests that advances in technology and the end of cold war have enabled liberal discourses of securing life to take new forms of control and strategic intervention at a global level. The authors provide governing interventions such as waging of war which have become bio-politicized. They also construct all behavior in adaptive terms that are emergent common to network centric doctrines.
This has caused intensification of liberal contrasts where war is waged to secure life; understood as under threats from complexities of globalized existence (Dillon 118). The book borrows more on conceptual framings taken from the work of Foucault, particularly his conceptualization of bio-politics.
Bio-politics
Dillon and Reid explain how, in modern thoughts of rule and war, the issue of rights is reduced to an object of regulatory intervention. They are motivated by imbrications of liberal rule with purpose of enhancing human life.
For Dillon and Reid, bio-political is the way of politics and power which, considering human existence as its reference point circumscribes the aim of what it is to be a living being to policing, auditing, and augmentation of human properties (Dillon 29).
The difference between liberal way of war and general conceptualization of war today as a geo-strategic contestation is well articulated in the book. It considers territorial state as referent object. Liberalism in this context never fitted this model of current politics and today’s complication of war effectively (Dillon 83).
In other words, the authors define liberalism and liberal way of war as different from war in modern times. Liberal way of war means less to real wars and conflicts than to an abstract bio-political technique of crisis. This is defined as need to separate war from human life which derived from the way in which liberalism assumes human life as its reference object of bio-politics (Dillon.84).
In this framing, the self descriptions of the conflict by war proponents determine liberal nature of war. Examples provided include; liberal ideological constructions of the US on the cause of freedom during cold war conflict with USSR and leaders of US and British propagation of war on Iraq in the cause of humanity (Dillon 6). The book also concurs that war can be waged on other intentions than universal humanity (Dillon 84).
Genealogy
The authors’ claims to develop the work of Foucault and in addition extend his conception of bio-politics to the liberal way of war. Bio-politics, however, merely turns to be way of viewing the world which examines humanity as its starting point.
The sections dedicated to the effect of the sciences- of the transformation of biology, of cybernetics, complexity and the digital revolution, and of the revolution in military affairs. This highlight the deterministic and technicised frameworks through which bio-politics is grasped as expressed in “informationalization of life”.
The book explains that the “reduction of human existence to information and code become central to the contemporary expression of liberal bio-politics (Dillon 56), offering international liberal governance with a programmatic agenda of transforming life itself.
Human is reduced to bio-human and taken as a reflection of scientific and technological development that allows new insight on what life is; and how it should be governed and secured through war (Dillon 57).
Conclusion
In sum, this book offers a genealogy of ‘informationalisation of life’ which is deterministic (Dillon 52). It assumes that people live in a liberal world of rule and war. This, they say, can be assessed through development of bio-politics, a concept of Foucault.
In exploring Foucault’s concern with liberal ways of rule to an understanding of liberal ways of war, the book takes a body of historical work about changing political nature of liberal rule. It then goes on to transpose it into an essential understanding of liberal war (Dillon 53).
Work Cited
Dillon, Michael, and Reid Julian. The Liberal Way of War. London: Routledge. 2009.
The world has developed from the old age to the new technological and civilized advancements. Several things have developed in governance and leadership. There is more of liberation, democracy, and freedom both socially and in the political arena (Cartel, 2007). There are still many people in our communities who are still keeping the old methods of dealing with situations and issues.
These are conservatives who are still holding on their traditions, cultures, leadership and religion (Cartel, 2007). Human beings have evolved from various aspects of living both politically and socially. They have freedom to do anything at their will or according to the guidelines they have set which is liberty (Cartel, 2007).
In politics, people have the right to elect whoever they feel like electing without any bias. They do it in their own will and decide on whom to support in his or her candidacy. In some cases, people hold on to their political parties and support the members fully without any external force compelling them to do it (Cartel, 2007).
Some people will vote for a person in order to protect their interests while another group will elect someone in order to fill the vacant position and have no good reason as to why they chose one for the other. In general this is termed as political liberalism where a lot of freedom is noticed in the political arena (Rawls, 2005).
In our sociology and philosophy, we will realize two aspects of liberty; the positive and negative liberty. Positive liberty allows a person to perform whatever he or she feels like doing without being inhibited by any external forces from the society as a result of racism, sexuality, religion background, gender, social class or political grounds (Cartel, 2007).
Every human being has the freedom to carry out his or her activities without any interference from any other person or authority due to his belief or political opinion in relation to positive liberty.
People have the capacity, ability and opportunity to do what they want to do despite the obstacles ahead of them. In negative liberty, a person has the freedom to carry out activities to the extent that no person or authority that interferes with whatever he or she does (Cartel, 2007).
The negative concept tries to define what extent is a person or crowd can exercise their freedom without external interference (Cartel, 2007). An example of positive and negative liberty is considering a person who is driving a car and on his way meets a junction where he might either turn right or left, the driver might decide to turn either side without any force compelling him (Cartel, 2007).
In the second case take a driver who gets to the junction and decides to turn right in order to pick a bottle of wine despite the meeting he as on the other left turn he has left. one driver deicide to take a turn out of his free will while the other take a turn because of his urge to have wine and has the freedom to it (Cartel, 2007).
Many scholars have researched on political liberalism and developed various theories in relation to liberty (Cartel, 2007). We have several texts from Modus and Rawl that try to discuss the topic on political liberalism. Rawl’s text is rich in ideas and suggestion on the policies to develop in preparing a good society structure (Rawls, 2005).
There is no big difference between freedom and liberty and in some situations the words may be used interchangeably. (Cartel, 2007)The word freedom refers to a person being free to do whatever he fells or wants to do without any restrictions from the agent, self and other obstructions. This makes the word freedom to have close relationship with liberty (Cartel, 2007).
The study of international relations is a competition between different theoretical perspectives and policymakers and practitioners in international affairs who often dismiss these theories with compelling reason1. One cannot, however, divorce the inescapable connection between the abstract world of theory and the reality they face in the world.
Theories in international relations are necessary in order to understand the enormous amount of information that we receive daily. Policymakers have to rely on their own ideas about how the world works and in order to organize this information and ideas in order to make sound policies, they have to use principles.
The recent example is the ascent of China in the world arena fueled by its influence and ambition that is likely to upset the global balance of power. The question many policymakers are grappling with is how to respond to China.
Many viewpoints have been put forward, with some saying that its behavior will be modified by the spread of democratic principles while others maintain that relations between this country and other nations of the world will be formed on the basis of culture and identity2.
The question that remains in the minds of scholars and practitioners of international relations is whether China will regard itself as an ordinary member of the world community or will see itself as a special member who deserves exceptional treatment and how will the rest of the world treat it.
A realist will look at international affairs as a competition and conflict of nations as actors fight for their own security, pursue national interests and power.
Liberalism, however, promotes several ways of dealing with conflict tendencies, which are democratic peace, cooperation, free commerce and economic interdependence3. In view of this, it is liberalism, not realism that offers more realistic understanding of contemporary international relations.
Realism in international relations
Realism is based on several approaches, which originated from Thucydides between 460-411 B.C.E, who thought of politics as involving moral questions.
In regard to relations among states which power was critical, Thucydides stated that they can be guided by norms of justice, ‘History of the Peloponnesian War’ and ‘Melian Dialogue’ portrays partial accounts of armed conflict between Athens and Sparta and opposing speeches regarding an issue4.
It is from these works that realism is expressed and which continued to inspire theorists such as Hobbes, and modern day scholars of international relations.
The forty year Cold War period, realism guided most of the international relations, but this changed with the collapse of socialism to pave the way for a new system where international cooperation, international norms and institutions gained a lot of acceptance5.
This was referred to by US President Bush Sr as the “New World Order” where the bi-polar Cold War order was replaced by consensus among major powers that relations between nations be based on international norms, principles of international law and human rights.
This was seen by some critics as a framework in which US as the world superpower will advance its national interests and preserves its power in the international system. However, after the cold War, many non-American voices have become prominent6.
Realists believe that anarchy prevails in the international system, and this is why the world is always in conflicts. This is shown by states wanting to maximize their power and security, and since there is no international organization to enforce order and define its interests, each country has to secure its boarders, which is generally a self help system.
This necessitates the building up of military capabilities and if necessary the use of military force to maintain security and power. Realists also think of human nature as defining international relations7. What this means is that, human beings being egoistic and self interested as they are, will let self interest override the morality.
This is demonstrated by Thyucydides’ History where Athens confirms that people will not turn away from chances of enrichment presented by superior strengths.
Further, realists view international politics as lacking in morality which lead them to claiming there is no chance of morality in international relations8.
This assumption leads realists to believe that there exists strain in the demand of morality, and the needs for a thriving political action and thus morality is only used when justifying the actions of a state against another9.
This assumption is based on the Melian Dialogue where the Athenian envoys clearly states that decisions about justice only apply when both parties are under equal obligation in the force of the law, but when one party is stronger than the other it gets as much s it can and the weaker one has no choice but to accept the outcomes10.
This simply means justice is not served in international affairs since the stronger will always dominate the weaker.
Liberalism in international relations
Liberalism is derived from a variety of theories that stand to challenge political realism in international affairs. Some liberal schools of thought believe economic interdependence discourages states from applying force to each other since this threatens their prosperity. Another school of thought, whom President Woodrow Wilson falls into states that democracy in the world would bring peace.
This does not mean that democracies do not fight just like authoritarian states, but they rarely if ever, fight among themselves11. Different scholars such as Michael Doyle and Bruce Russel have given explanations in support of this with the common one arguing that democracies hold rules of compromise that do not allow use of force against groups holding the same principles.
The most modern of these believes that international institutions such as International Monetary Fund, Arab League, European Union, World Bank and International Energy Agency will be able to neutralize the selfish behavior of states by encouraging them to sacrifice short term gains to the greater benefits of a lasting cooperation12.
According to13, such institutions to be realized, members must share common values and down the line greater cooperation is achieved. Another thought on the international institution in international relations is that they can be used as tools governments can use to address specific problems. This is through information sharing on their behavior on these issues as agreed commitments.
This, way members are able to pressure non-conformists to act to the agreed goals. One common thought the liberal scholars agree on is that states entrenched in domestic and international civil society which determinedly limit their actions at both fonts.
Comparison of liberalism and realism
The focus of Realism in state power, national interests and unitary decision making is thought to dominate western politics since the Renaissance14. This focus is thought by even critics as still being central to the international political thought of the West which together with its endurance, thriftiness and appeal to policy makers are things that put this theory into a privileged position15.
The real scientific reason for this privilege is its well articulated theoretical approach. This, however, does not prevent it from being criticized persistently from all angles.
The most critical of this is from the liberal front are Immanuel Kant, John Stuart among others who hold such thoughts as democracies are more specific that other forms of governments; unequal distribution of power in a state and among states is a motivation for international conflicts; economic interdependence among states is a strong motivation for peace and cooperation, and international law creates a space for international accommodation among others.
All these thoughts, though held as independent critics to realism, have liberal theory associations.
Another assumption of liberalism which gives it more privilege than realism is the behaviors of states which mirrors the nature and configuration of state preferences and, therefore, define the levels of international conflict and cooperation16.
In addition, convergent state preferences result in interstate cooperation while divergent preferences result in conflicts17. This in essence means that, for a liberal state, its purposes are the most important in the world politics as compared to its power and what it gets will determine its actions. Though this is where Realists criticize liberal theory most, Waltz says that states do determine what they can get.
Both realist and liberals agree that states always have purpose and events in world politics are viewed in two stages18. In the first stage, states define their preferences and then they position themselves strategically to engage with others either through negotiation, coercion, or institutional decision making. The difference in both theories lies in the fact that the two groups emphasize different things in the two steps.
For realists, focus is given to the international bargaining which excludes changing state preferences from theoretical analysis and treats them as irrelevant or secondary. Realists, therefore, formulate their strategy and goals in light of external constraints in terms of military might or economic power and in modern days, international institutions, uncertainty, and cost of bargaining among other concerns.
Liberals, on the other hand, stress on variation of pre-strategic purposes of the state in accordance to domestic and international relationships with the civil society as the basic policy guiding behavior and international diplomacy. This simply means that it is an outcome not means that matter.
On this point, liberals are able to determine the outcomes of interstate bargaining and domestic preference formation as systematic outcomes are borne of interaction of state preferences, but not because of the distribution of bargaining resources as it’s the case in realism in which case it is hard to predict outcomes.
In the modern world where globalization has converted the world into a global village, liberal international relations are the most applicable19. Liberalisms emphasizes free trade where the benefits are realized by both sides and entire societies benefit since societies cannot efficiently produce all goods and services they need at home, but can be obtained abroad20.
Another argument is that, it is naïve to imagine that given a choice between war and trade, leaders will prefer benefits of trade than those of war, states are likely to cooperate more in trade than engage in war in the modern world21. This is demonstrated by the example of United States, Europe and Japan after World War II who are now engaged in deep economic ties which rules out any possibility of war among them22.
Trade has also fostered the growth of democracy in the world23. It is argued that economic interdependence in the modern world will force states to adopt common policies, which will open the way for procedures, for countries to open discussions and coordinate actions that traditionally have been thought of as domestic concerns24.
The international relations in the contemporary world should also be looked at from the liberal point of view in that liberals look at foreign policy preference of states as being directly influenced by recognized institutions that connect the state to the society25. These institutions include political parties, electoral systems and bureaucracies.
Though precise representation of social interests in politics has not always been achieved, and even in societies that have highly representative institutions have not been able to entirely avoid biases in governmental decision making. The more this accuracy is achieved the individual preferences are taken into account, the less likely the government will aggravate interstate conflicts26.
One liberalist, William Godwin, states that war only benefits few at the expense of the majority and this small group will make the majority incur the costs; therefore, they may not be undertaken in the modern world which is more democratic than ever than those of other types of regimes.
Liberals also argue that imperfect representation of social interests in the state policy is a catalyst for war27. In order for governments to provoke war, they need a purpose. If there is an “aggressor” with an agenda that does not sit well with this state or does not conform to “status quo”, a war is likely to break. In this situation, this conflict is highly unlikely to benefit the entire society but, an elitist class within this state.
If a wide range of social interests are taken into account, the situation for war is impossible. Care should be taken here because liberals do not suggest that conflict of interests is absent in international relations, but they are unlikely to go the war path because it is costly to all.
This is the reason Kant forecasts that states with representative institutions, checks and balances, individual rights and respect for the rule of law would not provoke war with another28.
Conclusion
The study of international relations is a competition of different theoretical perspectives, however, liberalism, not realism that offers more realistic understanding of contemporary international relations.
Realism looks at international affairs as a competition and conflict of nations as actors fight for their own security, pursue national interests and power, while liberalism promotes several ways of dealing with conflict tendencies, which are democratic peace, cooperation, free commerce and economic interdependence.
Realism was introduced by Thucydides several thousand years ago, and, during the forty years of Cold War, it guided most of international relations.
After the collapse, of socialism, leaders and liberal scholars of international relations joined US president Bush Sr in suggesting that a “New World Order” was born where relations between nations will be guided by international norms, principles, international law and human rights.
In this new way, of relating with each other nations suggestions by realists that anarchy prevails in the world and that international politics lacks morality were challenged. Generally liberal views of international relations are optimistic in nature as opposed to realism and; therefore, international relations should be looked at from this viewpoint.
Bibliography
Baldwin, D, Neorealism and neoliberalism, Columbia University Press, New York, 1993.
Bluth, C, Norms and international relations: the anachronistic nature of neo realist approaches, University of Leeds, Leeds, 2004.
Booth, S & Zalewski, M, International theory: positivism and beyond, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1996.
Carlsnaes, W & Simmons, B, Handbook of international relations, SAGE, Washington, 2002.
Clinton, D, The realist tradition and contemporary international relations. LSU Press, New York, 2007.
Held, D. & Mepham, Progressive foreign policy: new directions for UK, Polity, London, 2007.
Jackson, R. & Sorensen, G, Introduction to international relations. Oxford University Press, oxford, 1999.
Keohane, R, International institutions and state power: essays in international relations theory, Westview Press, Boulder, 1997.
Lebow, R. & Kappen, T, International relations theory and the end of the cold War, Columbia University Press, New York, 1996.
Moravcsik, A, Liberalism and international relations theory, Harvard University, Massachusetts, 2006.
Rosenburg, J,The empire of civil society: a critique of the realist theory of international relations, Verso, London, 1994.
Walt, S, ‘International relations: one world, many theories’, Foreign Policy, Vol. 21, No. 7, 1998, pp. 239-249.
Williams, M, The relist tradition and the limits of international relations, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2005.
Footnotes
1 Keohane, R, International institutions and state power: essays in international relations theory, Westview Press, Boulder, 1997, p. 78.
2 Jackson, R. & Sorensen, G, Introduction to international relations. Oxford University Press, oxford, 1999, p. 25.
3 Baldwin, D, Neorealism and neoliberalism, Columbia University Press, New York, 1993 p. 46.
4 Booth, S & Zalewski, M, International theory: positivism and beyond, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1996, p. 56.
5 Bluth, C, Norms and international relations: the anachronistic nature of neo realist approaches, University of Leeds, Leeds, 2004, p. 56.
6 Clinton, D, The realist tradition and contemporary international relations. LSU Press, New York, 2007, p. 67.
7 Rosenburg, J,The empire of civil society: a critique of the realist theory of international relations, Verso, London, 1994, p. 34.
8 Clinton, p. 37.
9 Walt, S, ‘International relations: one world, many theories’, Foreign Policy, Vol. 21, No. 7, 1998, pp. 240.
10 Clinton, p. 37
11. Keohane, p. 67.
12 Carlsnaes, W & Simmons, B, Handbook of international relations, SAGE, Washington, 2002, p. 56.
13 Jackson & Sorensen, p. 167.
14 Bluth, p. 49.
15 Clinton, p. 78.
16 Moravcsik, A, Liberalism and international relations theory, Havard University, Massachusetts, 2006, p. 87.
17 Moravcsik, p. 88.
18 Lebow, R. & Kappen, T, International relations theory and the end of the cold War, Columbia University Press, New York, 1996, p. 245.
19 Held, D. & Mepham, Progressive foreign policy: new directions for UK, Polity, London, 2007, p. 78.
20 Williams, M, The relist tradition and the limits of international relations, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2005, p. 67.
Many of the public policies rest on the platforms of ideological terms namely liberal and or conservative. An ideology here means “a set of beliefs about the values and role of government” (Birkland 143). Each of these ideologies has its own fundamental elements to which their proponents subscribe. These elements set out various basic premises or paradigms of liberalism and conservatism.
Liberalism is inclined on the ideas of existence of a compact between government and its people to which people are accorded the rights of revolution in case the compact is breached. The government has limited powers bound by natural laws of human rights with such rights applying to all people.
Ideally, liberalism supports the existence of an organized society in which majority rules with temperations of the rights of the minority. Indeed, liberalization subscribes to ideas of change through a change of administration regime in case governments fail to fulfill and honor their roles of protection of both private rights and the common good of their entire population.
Conservatism is inclined to the idea that human affairs seek the guidance of faith and subscription to ideologies of some supernatural force. It also subscribes to concepts of tradition and customs’ capacity to produce and affect the values of existing institutions. Additionally’ conservatism “remained distrustful of government interventions in the economy and worried that too much would reduce the disciplines of the market place” (Cochran and Malone 143).
Conservatisms subscribe to beliefs of people’s crucial base coupled with irrational nature. Liberalists argue that governments have essential roles in overseeing and regulating the economy by ensuring that people act in a responsible way financially by ensuring that companies exercise the right things, for instance, paying minimum wages.
Conservatisms claim that the government needs to oversee and regulate morality to enhance accountability and transparency. Essentially, from conservatisms’ dimension, the government needs to punish immoral acts by enacting appropriate laws.
Conservatism and liberalism policy topology in analyzing public policy is essentially useless. This is because policy analysis depicts biasness towards conservatism and liberalism. As Birkland reckons, “a nation approaches the democratic ideal to the extent that people have control over the government in what federalists call a dependence in the people” (142). This perhaps well explains the quest of liberal policies to enhance social equality.
However, despite the fact that people endeavor to acquire social equality, as the liberalism and conservatism policy analysis topographies may contend, people do not strike a consensus on the appropriate polices or the policies implementation process to acquire the desired changes.
More often, while conducting an analysis of a problem, people look at the problem from its districts of origin. In many situations, the problem originates from what the government did and failed. This means that during the policy analysis process, people approach the process with biasness (Cochran and Malone 10).
The argument is that policy analysts who believe that government has proactive roles to play to curtail a problem end up blaming the problem on the government. On the other hand, those who believe that the government needed not to take part in the resolution of the problem at hand think that the escalation of the problem relied on the government’s interventions to solve the problem.
This gives rise to conflict of interests between the supporters of either liberal or conservative paradigms of policy analysis. Since it is the interest of the government to consider the opinion of all the stakeholders, the policy cycle- problem identification, policy development and evaluation is impaired by the fact that challenges in problem identification are truncated to other elements of policy cycle (Birkland 138).
Labeling people, ideas, and or organizations as liberal or conservative has both benefits and shortcomings. Both liberalism and conservatism advocate for radicalism rejection coupled with its violent uprooting of various established institutions and practices. They also accept the need for restraint retraining the government power, advocates for existence of a society that is balanced in respect to societal powers and individual powers.
Labeling an individual, idea or even an organization as liberal or conservative means that the ideas to which the individual or even the organization subscribes attributes, both liberalism and conservatism, are healthy for maintaining social order. However, on the other hand, tagging an individual, an organization, or an idea as conservative implies that it is individualistic in nature. This means the idea the person or the organization promotes serves only to benefit the least minority in the society.
A good example of this is the idea of healthcare policies. From the liberalistic approach, healthcare policies need to promote good healthcare for all people within the society-poor and rich (universal public plan). On the other hand, conservatisms promote healthcare insurance.
This means that quality healthcare needs to be accessed by those who can ideally afford it. Additionally, liberalists subscribe to the ideas of allocating minimum wage to all people irrespective of the state of economy. On the other hand, conservatisms believe that market forces need to determine the wages that the employers need to pay their employees.
Categorizing an idea, association or a person as a liberalist mean those ideas, persons or even the organization advocates are inconsistent with the actual nature of economy dynamics. Hence, it promotes ideologies, which are against the advantages of capitalism. This is why perhaps liberalists are stereotyped as “lazy” in America (Birkland 132). However, this is widely a misconception since liberalism is ideally not all about equal distribution of wealth at the disadvantage of the population that works hard.
Other topologies of analyzing public policies opposed to liberalisms and conservatisms that can be productive should focus on helping people (Birkland 113). Such an approach is essentially liberal conservatism. Ideally, this means that the topography needs to integrate the concerns of liberalism and conservatism. Liberalists approaches public policies from one extreme with perceptions of the needs of government to serve and foster policies that confer common good to all people.
On the other hand, conservatism approaches public policies from the extents of individualistic gain. These two topographies provide policy makers, thoughtful citizens, and even the government with differing perspectives while arriving at subtle conclusions on mechanisms of driving economic, social and political issues. Subscribing to a single topography infers that one suffers wholly from its demerits.
Integrating the two then means that more benefit can be conferred to the nation as a whole while mitigating the disadvantages of each of the topographies. Unfortunately, the productivity of liberal conservatism approach is contentious based on the difficulties in selection of the elements of the unit topography to incorporate in the integrated topography following the biasness existing among the topographies’ advocates.
Conclusively, this paper appreciates that approaching public policies from either liberalistic mind or conservatism mind has the effects of introducing both benefits and disadvantages associated with each approach. It proposes an alternative topography embracing integration of elements of both liberalism and conservatism public polices topographies.
The paper holds that, by doing this, more benefit is rendered to the people based on the integrated roles of the government while the shortcomings of the unit topography are reduced. The challenge is, however, on choosing the elements of the unit topography to drop and the ones to include in the integrated approach since, in both topographies, people approach policies with biasness.
Works Cited
Birkland, Thomas. An Introduction to the Policy Process: Theories, Concepts, and Models. New York London, England: Armonk, 2005. Print.
Cochran, Charles, and Eloise Malone. Public policy perspective and choices. London, UK: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2005.Print.
Turn Memo 1: In international relations, two theories are mostly employed in analyzing major issues in politics. Realism and idealism are the two major theories. Idealism is a theory that was first supported by the US president after the Second World War. The theory observes that there are many actors in the international system. The state is not the only actor because other units, such as religious organizations, Multinational Organizations, and supranational organizations exist.
The state does not have massive powers as far as policy formulation is concerned. For instance, Multinational Organizations influence the policy formulation among the Less Developed Countries. Moreover, religious organizations are known to influence the behavior of states in a number of ways (Lamy 78). An example is given in Poland during the Cold War when John Paul II influenced leaders to abandon communism in favor of capitalism.
In this regard, it can be observed that Catholic played a critical role in influencing leaders to keep off from the communism. In the international system, the United Nations plays an important role in influencing the foreign behavior of states. For instance, the UN Security Council can impose sanctions to a sovereign state. In Libya, the UN Security Council imposed a no fly zone sanction to the sovereign state because it is the main actor.
In contrary, realists observe that the only actor in the international system is the state. The state has the power to formulate foreign policies without consulting any other entity.
For instance, the state should not consult the populace before making foreign policies because foreign policy formulation process is considered high politics. In this case, other actors exist to temper with the sovereignty of the state because they should not be involved in the process. Realists claim that states have the powers to either support or oppose global decisions.
It is the responsibility of the state to decide whether to support a policy or not. Moreover, the state confers nationality to individuals. Without the state, an individual cannot move from one corner of the world to the other. The state has established structures that facilitate world security.
Turn memo 2: Liberalists observe that there are many actors in the international system. The international system is a community of both states and human beings. The foreign policy should recognize all actors. In this case, the role of other actors must be recognized. As states struggle to accomplish their missions, they must prioritize their goals.
Those goals that aim at fulfilling the common interests should be pursued first as opposed to the goals that accomplish individual interests. Foreign policy formulation should be based on morality. Moreover, it must be based on internationally recognized codes and morals. This is the reason why states intervene militarily whenever human rights are violated. This shows that liberalists value universal interests as opposed to national interests. Hoffman noted that states have a duty beyond their borders.
For instance, a state should ensure that the rights of other individuals are not violated, irrespective of whether the individuals are citizens its citizens. Liberalists emphasize human rights meaning that they must always be taken into consideration whenever foreign policies are formulated. To liberalists, the end does not justify the means because leaders must be held accountable at every decision they make. Liberalists are prescriptive implying that foreign policy should be reflective (Mansbach 89).
On the other hand, realists observe that the unit of analysis is the state. The international system dictates to the state what should be done. In other words, changes in the international system dictate foreign policies. In this regard, the international system is anarchic meaning that it lacks the central authority. Each state is concerned with its own security. States are preoccupied with national interests, not collective security. Therefore, the state will always prioritize its interests. Realists believe that the end will always justify the means.
Turn memo 3: To liberalists, the international system is characterized by cooperation. This explains why the US could provide aid to its adversaries such as Japan and Russia during calamities. In the international system, law is respected because it dictates what ought to be done.
For instance, states will always cooperate to fight the common enemy. For example, states struggle to achieve peace through nuclear disarmament programs. In the current international system, many states are members of world organizations such as the World Trade Organizations and the Atomic Agency. The main aim is to achieve peace and order (Masker 12).
To realists, the international system is characterized by brutality and mistrust. In this case, the international system is anarchic implying that some states are powerful than others. The less powerful states are usually subjugated and oppressed. The powerful states control policy formulation at the global arena.
For instance, the powerful states control important organizations such as the World Trade Organization and the United Nations. The powerful states use the world organizations to achieve their national interests. The United Nations and the World Trade Organization exist as far as the US would permit.
Works Cited
Lamy, Steven. Introduction to Global Politics. New York: Oxford University Press, 2012. Print.
Mansbach, and K. Rafferty. Introduction to Global Politics. New York, NY: Routledge, 2007. Print.
Masker, John . Introduction to Global Politics: A Reader. New York: Oxford University Press, 2012. Print.
In Canada a multi-party system is operating, however, throughout all of its history, there were only two power parties that replace each other- liberals and conservatives. This paper is discussing the Liberal Party of Canada providing a brief overview, the promises that are given, and its leader Stephen Dion.
Overview
The Liberal Party of Canada was established nationwide in 1873. Originally it united the defenders of the rights of provinces, supporters of free trade, and bigger independence in relation to Great Britain; leaned against a theoretical heritage of English Manchester liberalism, North American radicalism, and the French revolution in 1848.
Starting from 1930 The Liberal Party of Canada has gone to more active social policy, including the help to the unemployed, payments of grants to farmers and etc. Continuing to protect free business, liberals allowed the state economic regulation, “Canadianization” of the economy, and the introduction of government programs of social security.
The Liberal Party of Canada declares the adherence to liberal principles of individual freedom, responsibility, and the dignity of the person within the limits of a fair society and political freedom within the limits of original participation for all, as well as a lawful state. Liberals proclaim the equality of chances for all members of the society, encouragement of a cultural variety, and bilingual rights. The Liberal Party of Canada was in the power in 1873-1878, 1896-1911, 1921-1926, 1926-1930, 1935-1957, 1963-1979, 1980-1984, and since 1993.
The Promises
The promises of The Liberal Party of Canada according to the campaign platform for 2008 focused around three concepts that can be expressed as richer, fairer, and greener. Accordingly, these concepts are made to help to face the three challenges that Canada faces which are: “growing our economy, fighting the climate change crisis, and helping our fellow Canadians”. The “richer” concept includes such steps as:
Lowering income taxes.
New annual child tax credit
Reformation of the tax system
Additional assistance to rural and northern Canadians
Reducing the federal corporate tax rates
Reduce taxes for small businesses
Smart tax incentives
In general, these steps are few from a more detailed plan that includes balanced budgets, long-term infrastructure investment programs, creation of Advanced Manufacturing Prosperity Fund to support major investments in manufacturing and R&D facilities.
The concept of “greener” as the name implies is concerned about ecology and pollution reduction. The steps that are promised to be taken to solve the ecology and pollution problems are:
Fighting climate change crisis – which consists of reducing industrial emissions, and clean energy.
Clean air – passing new pass tough National Ambient Air Quality Standards
Protecting the water resources
Protecting health
The concept of “fairer” is concerned mostly with social problems such as children, health care, poverty, and immigration. Some of the promises include implementing such steps as:
Income support
New funds for child care
Enforcing Canada Health Act
New immigration plan
Stephen Dion
Stephane Maurice Dion (born September 28, 1955, in Quebec) before being elected as a leader for the Liberal party of Canada served as Foreign Affairs critic in Interim Leader Bill Graham’s cabinet. Dion was elected as the leader of the Liberal Party in 1996 and re-elected in 1997, 2000, 2004, and 2006. The accomplishments of Dion include:
Extending the Kyoto protocol
Protection of Canada’s heritage sites
Developing the federal government’s case against unilateral secession which was later turned into law through the Clarity Act, passed in 2000
Works Cited
The Liberal Party of Canada. Richer, Fairer, Greener : An Action Plan for the 21st Century. 2008. Web.
The Liberal Party of Canada. Stephane Dion In Depth. 2008.