Category: Liberalism

Summary

Niblett described the essence of the liberal international order as a social progression that leads to the creation of open markets, democratic societies, and the significant propensity for governments and institutions to respect and protect individual human rights. Using the simplified explanation as to the real-world application of the liberal international order, the author went on to lament its demise. He said that the phenomenon, the so-called liberal international order is on a retreat. He cited China’s capability to challenge the United State’s economic and military hegemony in Asia. ¹ He also pointed out the European Union and America’s failure to capitalize on the impact of the Arab Spring to build more liberal states. Niblett also cited the tremendous growth of Russia. Finally, the author pointed out that the problem related to the liberal international order is an internal dysfunction. He went on to cite the UK’s decision to leave the EU and other problems. Niblett developed a premise that due to the radical forces shaping the international arena, leaders of democratic societies like the United States and other countries in Europe must learn to adapt to the presence of diverse political systems. Niblett was confident to say that in the long run, liberal democracy will emerge as the victor in a struggle against non-liberal democracies.

Niblett went on to describe the root cause of the problem. He pointed out that the United States and the United Kingdom were at the forefront in the global expansion of the so-called international liberal order. These two countries were the critical players in the creation of institutions that would have ensured the creation of subsequence liberal democracies until the whole planet is soaked in the same political and economic ideals.

Nevertheless, it was also the US and the UK that inadvertently accelerated the demise of the said order. In the case of the United States, the new administration refused to support and invest in America’s allies. On the other hand, the United Kingdom withdrew its support from the EU. The implications of these changes were exacerbated by the political and economic turmoil within the United States and the UK. Thus, it has become harder for the US and the UK to take the lead in the global expansion of liberal ideas and the importance of fair play.

Niblett assured his readers that, in the long run, countries openly supporting liberal democracies are going to weather the storm and enjoy a better future. On the other hand, Niblett encouraged his readers to work together to accomplish better sets of goals. Nevertheless, Niblett also pointed out the weakness in the system, especially the failure of the United States to demonstrate the upside of choosing a liberal democratic framework. Also, the United States is perceived as a nation supporting liberal democratic ideals for its benefit. Niblett did not only encourage to solve the said problems, but he also said that the United States and the United Kingdom must lead the way again.

Critique

Reasons behind writing the article

Niblett crafted the article because of a growing concern regarding the shrinking influence of liberal democracies. The disappearance of the failure to celebrate liberal values and ideologies leads to the destruction of the stagnant growth of societies that valued the principles of freedom and equality. In other words, the author sounded the alarm and clarified his intention to fight back to retain the beautiful ideals of democracy. He wanted to ensure that the liberal ideologies created by liberal democracies are passed on to the next generation.

Unclear points in the article

It is not yet clear to me if Niblett cannot envision an international community without considering or thinking about the United States, the EU, and the UK. If this is the case, then, Niblett may have created an argument that is not possible to overcome. Consider for instance the assumption that the United States and the UK are two of the most influential countries in spreading the ideas of freedom. Thus, the inability of the US to follow certain rules and guidelines undermines the country’s capacity for growth.

Points of agreement

I agree with the author’s idea to adapt to changing times. I agree with the proposal to learn how to co-exist with other nation-states even if these territories are not yet exemplifying the liberal thinking methodology that transformed countries in the EU and the US.

Points of disagreement

I am in disagreement with the implied idea that it is only through the benevolence of the United States and the EU that we may be able to experience the true meaning of freedom. It is not practical to ascribe everything to the United States. It is also the best time to consider other options rather than to support only one political entity. It is also high time to consider the potential of other independent nations to demonstrate their capability to construct the necessary political infrastructure to lessen the global dependence on the United States. It is imperative to improve the way people perceive the United States.

Impact on International Relations

Niblett’s article provided an overview of how influential nations like the United States and the UK are going to listen to the clamor of the people. He said that these powerful national states are going to shape and challenge the international order by establishing and supporting institutions. However, it also creates problems in the long run, because the United States and his allies like the UK are viewed as elite members of society, and that in reality they are not affected by the problems of ordinary people.

The Most Interesting Aspect of the Article

One of the most interesting ideas that came from the article was the failure of Russia to sometimes integrate his busies into a global system, because of the country’s antiquated system. In my opinion, it is imperative to take a long and hard look at Russia. The failure of the nation to advance to the next level of competition and robust growth will affect the other nations in the region as well.

The answers to the questions help highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the article. The article was brilliant in the way the author utilized historical facts and insights into world history to produce a compelling narration of the development of the said international liberal order. On the other hand, the same rhetoric also negatively affects how poor economies view the participation of the United States in global affairs. It is important to consider fairness or fair play before the United States government implements a strategy serving only its selfish interest.

Bibliography

Niblett, Robin. “The Retreat of Liberalism: The Demise of a Dream.” Foreign Affairs 1, no. 1 (2017): 17-24.

The issue of business support in countries where liberal governments are leading is a burning issue for businessmen and stakeholders, as their incomes and general business strategies depend on the actions which governments perform and on the support of business by the government. This essay will examine the support of business interests by the Liberal Party of Australia, emphasizing that the general actions performed by the heads of this party should be analyzed through the observation of their adequacy and effectiveness. The paper will look at the actions and conclusions, made by different governments and bodies headed by the representatives of the Liberal Party, and the adequacy of these actions will be regarded in the context of support of business interests. The fact is that liberal governments have often had to restrict business rights for adequate business regulation. During John Howard’s leadership, the party was particularly interventionist in its financial and business policy regulations, as it maintained Australia’s high tariff levels.

Firstly, it should be stated that the main principle of governmental activity of the Australian (and not only Australian) liberal movement is to have a considerable influence over the national economy and government’s economic policies. Nevertheless, it should be stated that all the actions, which Liberal Party undertakes, are essentially conservative from the social point of view, consequently, small business is not thoroughly supported. On the one hand, the taxation issues are easier to regulate, on the other hand, these actions can not be regarded as adequate measures of business regulation. As Wright (2007, p.51) emphasizes:

“The general principles espoused by the Liberal Party in its platform include: free enterprise, support for the business community, individual choice, reward for individual effort, federalism, smaller government, defense, the family, and a limited welfare safety net.”

In light of this fact, it should be emphasized that business regulation is generally regarded to be the prerogative of governmental sector, while private business is not regarded to be the important sphere for the Liberal Party.

As for the matters of small business regulation and support, it should be stated that most of these issues were essentially debated by the legislative council. Originally, it is stated (Moran, 2008, p. 380) that the Minister of Small Business failed to represent the interests of the small business sector within the government, and, the liberal government also failed to establish and implement an effective policy platform to advance the small business sector. On the one hand it may be explained by the fact that liberals do not extensively support small business, as, according to liberal policies and regulations, small business distracts attention from more important economic spheres. Consequently, Small Business Ministry is not seriously interested in developing this sector. The business confidence of the small business policies are regarded to be the worst developed in the sphere of Victorian and West Australian state governments. Moran (2008, p. 364) states the following notion on this consideration:

“…I expressed concerns about the Bracks Government’s (Steve Bracks is the 44th Premier of Victoria, holding the position for eight years, from 1999 to 2007.) failure to support small business in the ACTU redundancy test case, to address costly delays in local government planning decisions and the trend in Government legislation to extend rights of entry to a wider range of department and government agency representatives”.

From this point of view, it should be stated that the adequacy of the Liberal party in the sphere of business support might be seriously doubted, as successful development of business is hard to imagine without small business support. It is the most vulnerable sphere of business, and requires essential governmental support for successful development.

Another action which defines the attitude of Liberal Party towards business is the Shop Trading Reform. Originally, this reform was the attempt to correct the failure of Bracks Government, and its Easter Sunday shutdown concession aimed at arranging the Shop Distributive and Allied Employees organization (Dana, 2005). Legislation is regarded here as the improvement action, which was aimed at encouraging the development of small business: it permitted the development of private chemists, petrol stations and cafes, restaurants and coffee shops as of right trading. Moreover, as Pike (2007, p. 218) emphasises, the small businesses with less then 20 employees were treated with specific conditions and privileges:

“Liberal Small Business Ministry also encouraged to open Easter Sunday, Good Friday, Christmas Day and up to 1pm on ANZAC Day. A clause is included that allows retailers to elect whether or not they open, voiding any existing lease obligation on those days. The legislation also provides for the enforcement of trading hours legislation by a new inspectorate rather than by the police. The new inspectors are expected to be Consumer Affairs Victoria inspectors.”

Taking this fact into consideration, it should be stated that the representation of business interests through issuing reform bills is not the most adequate regulation measure. While it provides and encourages the development of small business, such encouragement entails the prohibition of small private shops. According to Wijewardena and Tibbits (2005, p. 234), this measure is one of the most adequate; nevertheless, it is not thoroughly planned and implemented, as the privileges of running the business which is encouraged are not clearly stated in the Bill. Business interests in the circumstances of globalization are also subjected to spreading in the global scales; consequently, all the regulations and support of business interests should take into consideration the matters of foreign capitals. However, Liberal Party is not interested in attracting foreign capitals, making accent on developing domestic business (without taking into consideration the interests of small business).

The following action, which may be considered as the business regulation act is the Professional Standards Bill. Originally, it touches upon the matters of business only indirectly, nevertheless, it is aimed at regulating the issues of economic loss for the firms and companies which are the members of professional or trade association. As Wright (2007, p. 78) emphasizes:

“The Bill is expected to improve the insurance market as it will provide more certainty to insurers in regard to their exposure to claims. The bill is template legislation which is being progressively enacted in all states and it establishes a national independent professional standards council to supervise association schemes. Schemes can run up to five years but the council will have the power to cancel, vary or extend them.”

Initially, the liberal party aimed to support this legislative act; nevertheless, a concern was expressed, stating that industry associations should not be granted the opportunity of using the privileges of membership in similar organizations, as originally, this creates the essential barrier for the newcomers in the industry.

The fact is that, all the actions by political bodies are stipulated by the principles and rules, stated in the program. Liberal Party of Australia entails the following points of supporting the interests of business:

• Promotion of higher and more professional business standards for encouraging the appearing of business unions and associations
• Providing policies for simplifying the public use of credits
• Establishment of the uniform and united statistic rates and all the necessary information on the matters of insurance
• Maintenance of the integrity of the local market of commerce
• Encouragement of using the goods and services of the domestic market
• Providing all the necessary legislative support for achieving the set up goals (Moran, 2008, p. 175)

Originally it should be state that the business interests are supported not only by the Liberal party, and in spite of the fact that Liberals in Australia are interested in supporting these interest, they do not take adequate actions for providing the defense of these interests in the legislative and governmental spheres. All the actions, performed by liberals discourage the development of small business and in no way support the interests of private business. All the privileges, offered to private entrepreneurs are suitable for those who are participating in business alliances; however, this participation essentially discourages the active business performance of the newcomers.

Anyway, the highest value of any business regulation is the opportunity of fair trade and fair play on the market. Taking into consideration the described steps of defending the interests of business, it should be stated that the actions by liberal party can not be regarded as adequate. On the one hand, the principles of fair trade and fair play are not diminished; nevertheless, the principles of privileges and favoritism are blooming.

According to the national statistics, up to two thirds of small business entrepreneurs, who are not participating in business association, are close to quitting business activity, while joining these associations is dangerous with the takeover of their business. Moreover, it should be stated that neither party is going to restructure this model of private business development, as this would require the restructuring of taxation regulation. On the other hand, entrepreneurs will not provide essential support on the elections; consequently, parties are not aiming to defend their interests. Especially this may be said of the Liberal party, which already has a broad support within the Australian population. (Moran, 2008, p. 184)

Conclusion

The paper looked at the actions, performed by Liberal Party, the governments, headed by the representatives of the Liberals and the bodies, headed by them. These actions were analised in the context of supporting the interests of business sphere, thus, there is strong necessity to emphasize that the defense and support of business interests is just not within the prime interests of the population of Australia. Consequently, the Liberal party, as well as any other, is not going to pay much attention to these issues and provide the adequate and allover support of private business, and encourage its extensive development.

References

Dana, Leo Paul. 2005 “The Spirit of Entrepreneurship and the Commonwealth Government of Australia.” Journal of Small Business Management 26.1: 63

Moran, Anthony. 2008 Australia: Nation, Belonging, and Globalization. New York: Routledge.

Pike, Douglas. 2007 Australia: The Quiet Continent. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Wijewardena, Hema, and Garry E. Tibbits. 2005 “Factors Contributing to the Growth of Small Manufacturing Firms: Data from Australia.” Journal of Small Business Management 37.2: 88

Wright, and Deborah Ralston. 2007 “The Lagging Development of Small Business Internet Banking in Australia.” Journal of Small Business Management 40.1: 51

The conceptual framework facilitating the effective functioning of most states has incorporated various schools of thoughts as they strive towards their goals. Such frameworks are conceived deeply within the politics of a country or state. In this light, such critical processes as liberalism and realism have been developed to create meaning on the politics of a nation. The frameworks are distinct depending on the state leadership and administrator present.

Liberalism set up a code of conduct in the political structure of a nation through identifying the norms of a state or country. The ideas of liberty developed through a processing system and approved as the legal framework of a government regulation ensure that order is restored at all times. Democratic nations create these structures to ensure that the line of action is predetermined and free from bias. Other nations set up the reaction processes through their administrator, who determines the way of handling issues in a country.

This aspect has been associated with dictatorship since issues are manipulated through individual decisions and few consultations. This kind of system dissatisfies people since they are not aware of the fairness in such a process. In this regard, the political structure formed through this system is referred to as realism. This paper discusses various aspects of liberalism and realism as the systems developed through the particulate school of thought to ensure that nations grow and civilize.

Liberalism

Why do liberals think that universal moral principles should be made a reality?

Liberals believe that people should have a common way of judgment internationally where each action faces a general reaction for every person across the globe. The common standard of identifying norms within a society forms a solution for differences in ideologies as perceived in the current globe. For instance, the use of drugs has been an area of controversies where some countries allow their use while others refute them.

For instance, bhang has been allowed in Jamaica. Jamaica can be a source and a center of distributing such illegal commodities globally. Liberals develop an idea that a common moral standard would exempt such differences that create weaknesses. They support this argument by pointing out that universal norm and morals can exempt differences as seen in religion standards.

If all people had a common religion, beliefs, laws, rules, regulations, and conditions among others, the judgments would be made through one line of thought since there would be no differences. In fact, trying individuals in a foreign nation would have no difference.

What is the moral defense of this position; what is the political defense, i.e. implications for institutional arrangements?

However, the realization of this form of arrangement would not only be impossible but also unrealistic due to the prevailing institutional setup. Setting up such a common norm for the whole world would imply that all religions are nullified into one organization with similar beliefs, which is entirely vague. According to the current setup, such a manipulation of the current system would oblige people with their right to choose a religion.

Furthermore, the rules made by different nations through the mutual democratic system would be dissolved in order to create a universal system. The sovereignty of all democratic nations would be dissolved to facilitate the functioning of the incoming rule of law. However, this imagination would create a system without moral indifferences as depicted in the Muslim and Christian communities.

Therefore, the rights arising from these disagreements may not proceed with this universal standard. Similarly, the rule of law would be the same in all nations even though they are controlled and directed by a different leader. This factor implies that it would be hard to sideline a nation for reacting in a certain manner since there is a common way of operating the governments where deviations from the norms are easily identified. It implies that conflicts between nations, as depicted between North Korea, Iran, and Iraq, cannot suffice.

What do they mean by universal morality?

Universal morality is a basic way of acting followed by everyone throughout the universe where a common civilization of common moral principles has been attained. It represents three fundamental categories of principles attempting to attain this morality. The first one involves the trail to elevate the happiness of oneself and his or her fulfillment.

The second aspect is increasing these two aspects to other people existing within the universe. The final development is increasing them within the creatures of other species in the universe. Each of the other attributes within universal morality falls within these three categories as the UM Principles.

What is their analysis of human nature?

Each person has a certain level of an advantage as an individual. However, modern and classical liberalism have different perspectives while evaluating human nature in politics. The classical perspective shows that each person has the ability to reason and make personal decisions, which may be self-seeking at most times. The modern perspective argues that people are made characteristically to enhance the lives of others through natural and undeniable causes.

Liberals argue that as people make self-preservation for their individual needs, they retain and depict moral perceptions, reasons, and empathy. Some individual is corrupt for their selfish requirement and plans. Ideally, people can initiate war in order to create a market for their weapons. Other people are despotic and way off the understanding league. Liberals comprehend that human nature offers characters that are too distinct whereby self-mastery, corrections, and learning are imperative.

What is their analysis of politics?

Liberals argue that regulations should be controlled through written rules. They uphold the function of constitutionalism and rule of laws to control many aspects facilitating the free movement of the entire globe. They argue that civil rights ensure the integrity of each person and secure legal processes to deal with issues going contrary to their acceptable set-up.

Liberals believe that globalization facilitates the growth of mutual civilization and creates an ecosystem that is self-sustainable where resources are not enclosed to one region. Liberal internationalism facilitates devolvement and spread of these resources through trading.

Which moral principles should be pursued in international politics and how?

There are various moral principles fundamental in the pursuit to develop international politics. The main agenda for developing such a system is to initiate cohesion between all nations and establishing independent organizations to solve conflicts between nations. The development of cohesion and binding agreements can prevent wars between nations, especially when organizations have been formed to provide solutions.

Liberals believe that the lack of an international organization to resolve issues arising between sovereign nations can prevent conflicts. In a similar way that a judiciary solves the conflict between people and organizations, an international body can resolve problems that might arise, for example, tension and war. International politics should aim to establish a system where all nations participate in a judicial process to agree on fighting wars of international threat.

Can you think of examples of universal moral principles being successfully put into practice, or attempts to do so?

Some organizations, such as the United Nation and The Hague, are examples of bodies maintaining international order. The United Nations resolve conflicts between and within a country. For instance, the post-election violence from Kenya in the year 2007 was solved by the United Nations through Kofi Annan and other people where a coalition government was formed.

In fact, the people suspected to have caused this violence were judged for inhumanity in The Hague. The Hague is an international criminal court invented after the Rwanda Massacre, which led to the death of about 1 million people. The court has the mandate to sue individuals suspected to conduct inhumane actions and violence, which destabilize a nation and its leadership.

Realism

What do political realists think of attempts to implement universal principles in international politics?

Realists retain a benefit of the doubt on the idea of implementing universal principles. They argue that forming a functional universal system to be followed by all nations demands humbleness.

Essentially, all countries across the globe are not equal and they not humble. In fact, some nations may possess very high powers that cannot be overruled by the organizations handling international matters. Powers of politics are different while being evaluated by different nations making them not to stand similar position before and after international judgments.

What is political realism as a theory of world politics and a guide for foreign policy? Is there a standard of morality they recommend? If so, is this universal or relative?

The economy has been struggling. As such, it implies that the rate of unemployment has been high. Part of the problem is attributable to high levels of immigration into the country. The party can use this platform to reassure citizens that it will reform the immigration policies in order to safeguard employment opportunities.

The aim is to ensure that the locals are not discriminated since they would charge higher wages than the immigrants (Morone Ch5). The reforms will bring equality to the job market so that they do not oppress the immigrants while protecting the interest of the locals. As such, the party has to persuade the voters that they will fix the immigration floodgates to the advantage of the locals.

What is their analysis of human nature? What is their analysis of politics?

Wars are expensive both in terms of monitory value and human value. Wars lead to causalities on both sides. The previous regimes have used war as a tool in what was termed as matters of national security and protecting the country border integrity (Morone Ch13). The act of war means that frequently people within one family are separated from each other. The separation happens because the soldiers are deployed in far land, miles away from their borders.

Every child would wish to have the peace of mind that they will go home to see their parents. Each wife holds the hope that her husband will come back from war safe while every parent lives the dream that they will see their child walking through the door from the battlefield. These people do not need to wish, hope or dream since there are alternatives for the deployment of the men in uniform in far lands.

As such, they are championing for the strengthening of the government where the soldiers are deployed should be the driving policy. As such, this eliminates the situation of deploying the troops in foreign lands. Consequently, the party has to persuade the masses that they could develop working legislation and policies to assure that none of the soldiers will ever be deployed in foreign soil. As such, they should make sure the citizens vote for party members since they will support the initiative to eliminate deployment of soldiers in a foreign land.

Can you think of useful examples of realist critiques of imprudent foreign policies that have relied on idealist principles of universal morality, such as Vietnam or Iraq?

The Iraq government is a constitutional republic. According to the Iraq constitution, the government is organized in departments whose roles are defined by the president. On the other hand, the Iraq government is constitutionally defined, and the structure is predetermined.

As such, this makes Iraq vulnerable to criticism since the president has the power to influence the function through rearrangement of government structure. Nevertheless, considering the civil protest, it is fair to state that Iraq has a great number of invalid ballots. As a result, it can only mean that Iraqis are less comfortable with the functioning of their government compared to Iraq’s politicians.

On what grounds do Morgenthau and McNamara criticize Johnson’s policy in Vietnam? Was Johnson’s an idealist policy; in what way?

News and reports in America are of late commonly filled with stories about political dysfunction, and thus, there is a clear indication that the public is losing its confidence in the governing forces. The major concerns revolve around the issue of bipartisanship, which is causing polarization of the Congress.

With the two of America’s political parties becoming more distinct in recent years, there has been a deeper division thus termed as polarization. The split, which started a few years back, has become deep to the extent that members of the congress vote according to their ideological apprehensions and beliefs.

The congress is polarized because the ideological difference between representative and constituent keeps on increasing with the lapse of time. Race, abortion, school prayer, gay marriages and the conduct of foreign policy have polarized the parties since every individual tends to vote according to their own opinion, as opposed to what is right to the citizens. In addition, voting is also based on what will be right to the party.

Polarization is also clearly explained by the alignment between opinions on social issues and affiliation between political parties. The aspect of a compromise also indicates polarization of the Congress. Some of the outstanding figures in the political environment have indicated that, during disagreements, it might be easier to compromise on certain factors in order to reach a favorable goal.

Study shows that the effects of polarization in the country depend on the strength of both parties and their general effect and control over the government. However, one clear issue is that the polarization limits the extent to which Congress makes quality decisions among the people. Polarization limits the role of the legislative powers and policymaking process thus affecting democracy negatively. This happens because, with voting being based on ideologies, people cannot freely express their views concerning policy-making issues.

Polarization is said to act as a gridlock to a number of issues in the country thus affecting democracy. However, the actual effects are difficult to evaluate without ascertaining the actual measure of the gridlock. Statistics are taken also shows that, during polarization, the United States made more laws than during its normal time. However, the alarming issue remains the fact that the laws made were of poor quality.

Can you think of successful foreign policies that have followed the realist logic?

In the new version of political science model, interpretation of invalid votes and noncompliant abstention under the compulsory law is seen in three forms, namely institutional, political protest and socioeconomic. The three categories are connected using the following three assumptions.

Noncompliant abstention and invalid voting are rampant where the citizens are alienated from the political system and socioeconomic status (SES), institutional contexts and Politics impact on efficacy. As such, state capacity measured by the rate of the spoilt ballot is the dependent variable while institutional factors, political protest factors, and socioeconomic factors are independent.

If containment is so problematic, what alternative policy does Morgenthau recommend for SE Asia?

Using the socioeconomic status, an individual combines politics and orientation with individual resources to predispose his political participation and affiliation in the political process. The understanding is expounded on the explanation that individuals that have a higher status in the society will be in social contexts and environments that will encourage and enforce positive participatory and attitudinal norms, as well as civic skills.

Therefore, such individuals are likely to participate in politics and electoral process compared to low-status individuals. The defining dimensions of SES, in both Peru and Iraq, including but not limited to education, age, and income. In various studies, there is a curvilinear relationship that exists between participation in politics and the said socio-economic factors. Therefore, there is increased and responsible political participation with growth in socio-economic well-being.

Comparing the country in terms of social and economic well-being, Peru is behind Iraq. The literacy rate, education access, populace with high education, access to media, infrastructure development and GDP growth rate work in favor of Iraq. Therefore, from this perspective, it is clear that this theory holds since Iraq is performing better in this aspect and still registers higher political participation and higher invalid and noncompliant abstention.

What would realists say about Iraq or the conflict in Ukraine?

Many political analysts agree that deliberate vote spoiling is a good measure of political protest against a political regime or system. However, the specifics that the voters are protesting against remain unclear. Therefore, this gives a wide scope to such a variable.

Nevertheless, the measure is still useful and, in this case; it is seen as being three-dimensional, namely political authorities, regime institutions, and regime performance. As studies have shown, invalid votes, valid votes and non-voters have varying level of support for various political systems. Basically, non-voters and invalid voters never stand apart on the evaluation of political authorities. They tend to have coined understandings that are influenced by political socialization cohorts on the political authorities.

As such, this, therefore, becomes related to socioeconomic factors. In addition, regime performance is of importance. Performance is evaluated based on the functioning of democracy. Therefore, elements such as transparency in the running of government, equitable representation and pattern of government spending patterns are considered.

However, this is further based on the level of socio-economic development since only citizens that are politically conscious can monitor the activities of the government. Therefore, a spoilt vote can be a measure of regime failed performance. Also, as a good alternative, the satisfaction survey can be used to evaluate the level of performance.

Introduction

The terrain of history is in bad shape because of the extent to which man has waged war. Both large scale and small-scale wars are commonplace. The destruction of property is alarming, and the number of people who have been killed blood chilling. The First World War claimed its share of human lives. The Second World War followed with its own share. Both of them led to the destruction of property worth billions of dollars. The Vietnam War was fought, and men and women lost their lives. The Cold War had its share of inconveniences to humanity despite the fact that no shots were fired. The Iran-Iraq war claimed its share of lives too in the form of men, women and children. The Kuwaiti attack by Iraq saw the torching of oil fields, the death of several Iraq and Kuwaiti soldiers as well as the citizens of the two countries. The Djibouti –Ethiopia war also led to several deaths. The recent Iraq war has claimed the lives of thousands of American soldiers, Iraq civilians, and Iraq soldiers too. The same story rings true for the recent case of Russian attack on Georgia.

Main body

As the deaths continue and the property destruction goes on, the question that has been the subject of debate for a long time now is: Why do wars happen? In this essay, three perspectives, namely; the liberal perspective, the realist perspective, and the identity theorists’ perspective will be explored. The perspective that has the most convincing ideas will be pointed out. In this case, it is the liberal perspective as we shall see in this essay. The essay will end with a brief summary of the main ideas. The various wars mentioned above such as the First World War will be used as examples in clarifying important areas of the various perspectives.

To start with, the first perspective that has tried to explain why states go to war is liberalism; a theory whose backbone is the idea that peace in the world is a possibility so long as states are provided with a platform on which to sort out their problems. The argument is that differences will always exist but that is not a reason to fight. All that is needed is an organized forum or platform where the states that are in disagreement can have genuine and honest discussions with a deliberate intention to not only avoid war but also work towards lasting peace. There is a clear reliance on the assumption that human beings are driven by both rational instincts and the understanding of a shared destiny. What are the platforms that liberals think can assist in the provision of the chance to amicably solve international problems?

The first platform that liberals point at is the one that is availed by internationally recognized organizations such as the United Nations. Through such organizations, states that have differences can be able to have mediation in well-organized negotiations that can eventually lead to peaceful resolution of their differences. The United Nations was formed after the Second World War, after the League of Nations that was formed after the First World War failed to prevent the outbreak of another war. Has the United Nations faired any better compared to the League of Nations? Has it achieved as much as the liberals would want everyone to believe? Compared to the League of Nations, the United Nations has done a commendable job. This is as far as the prevention of the third world war is concerned.

The second platform that liberals have in mind when they talk about platforms for conflict resolution is the one availed by regional organizations such as the European Community which is currently known as the European Union, the African Union and the Organization of American States. These regional bodies are supposed to be at the forefront in trying to bring disagreeing states together so as to enable them carry out candid negotiations that can avoid armed confrontation. Such regional organizations are now found in all the continents and have all sorts of objectives ranging from peace cultivation to harmonized trade.

Liberal theorists in international relations also point in the direction of non-governmental organizations or non-state actors whose agenda is not politics but have an interest in a peaceful world. Such organizations include the faith based organizations such as the World Council of Churches. The liberals suggest that these organizations can also be used as platforms for negotiations that are geared towards conflict resolution and peace cultivation. How workable is this liberal perspective? How successful has it been in the practical world of politics?

To begin with, the liberal perspective has seen much success in the number of conflicts that the United Nations has been able to avert in various parts of the world. For example during the cold war, the United Nations acted as a comfortable platform which the president of the United States invoked from time to time while addressing the belligerence or aggressiveness of the Soviet Union. The fact that there has not been a third world war is evidence that the United Nations has been successful to some extent. Thus with more effort, the liberals can be vindicated.

Secondly, the regional organizations have been instrumental in creating harmony among states that have traditionally had conflicts. The regional organizations have therefore created not only a platform for negotiations but also the connectedness that makes conflicts unprofitable. For example the tight bond that is now developing in Europe through the European Union has helped lower tensions between the various states that locked horns in the First World War and Second World War. Is it possible for these states to go to war with each other? It is possible but unlikely. Therefore platforms for conflict resolution where the shared destiny of human beings is emphasized can be a successful way of avoiding war as pointed out by liberal theorists. What about the failures of this perspective?

Since the end of the Second World War, the world has witnessed several other smaller wars that have been deadly too. First, there was the Cold War where the two large states, the United States and the Soviet Union had a standoff that the United Nations would not diffuse for a long time. This is evidence that the platforms the liberals talk about can be impotent in moments of conflict. Maybe the liberals are wrong and war is inevitable.

Then there was the Vietnam War where many lives were lost followed by the Iran –Iraq war and the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq and most recently, the inability of the United Nations to successfully handle the conflict between the United States and Iraq over weapons inspections. The result was the invasion of Iraq by the United States, a move whose outcome has been the devastation of Iraq as a nation and the death of thousands of soldiers. All these have happened in the presence of not only the international organs of diplomacy such as the United Nations that liberals have immense confidence in but also the more manageable regional organizations that are supposed to be more successful due to their small size and reach in terms of objectives.

The United Nations has also failed to address numerous interstate conflicts in African such as the continued Ethiopia-Djibouti standoff and the Sudan-Chad conflict. To make matters worse, intra-state disorder which is largely responsible for interstate conflict has been elusive for the United Nations. This is an organization that finds it difficult to bring two warlords together. The basic idea here is that if two warlords in a country clash, the opposing militias will spill into neighboring states leading to interstate military conflicts. A successful United Nations should be able to deal with these small scale intrastate conflicts before they give rise to the larger and more complicated interstate issues. But the fact that this has not been achieved may refer to the weakness of the liberal perspective on war and international relations.

Far from liberalism, the realist perspective takes the position that due to the fact that conflict is inevitable, arms are part of the international security system. Therefore states that pursue arms are the ones that are bound to survive in the long run. Why then do wars happen? The realists argue that wars are as a result of an arms race whereby states that pursue arms reach a level where they feel that they are threatened by fellow states that are also engaged in an arms race. They therefore attack leading to a war. In international relations, states are allowed to engage in war if it is for self defense. It is also justifiable if the state has decided to engage in a war to defend a friendly state otherwise referred to as an ally. All these positions can only be taken if a state has been arming itself as the enemy state has been doing too.

The realist perspective does not necessarily envision wars as states pursue arms. Arms can be preventive. In this context, if a state pursues weapons, then it reaches a level where other states will not attack it since the retaliation can be devastating depending on the level of weaponry strength the state has achieved. This way, security is maintained. But what if a nation that is weaker in military strength makes a choice that the stronger state does not consider acceptable? The temptation for the stronger state to use its military might to coerce the weaker state to do what it does not want is a sure way that can lead to conflicts and eventually war. Depending on the outcome, the weaker state may or may not accept the position and the war may end in peace or occupation. Realists take the position that active arms acquisition will help foster military strength which will create a balance. The absence of weaker and stronger states in terms of the strength of arms will then lead to a peaceful world. Has this perspective been successful? Does it explain why we have wars?

In modern times, military bullying of the smaller states by the bigger states is commonplace. For example Iran is under immense pressure from the United States to stop its pursuit of nuclear activity. The military strength of the United States gives it the power to engage in this kind of coercion. The case would be different if Iran had the same power as the United States. The likely scenario is that if the tough talking Iranian leadership continues, the United States will handle it militarily as a way of preventing a nuclear race in the Middle East, which according to Washington strategists, is bad for both the region and the world. But as it has already been noted, if Iran had more arms strength, the United States would not have bothered to coerce it as it would have feared a retaliatory strike. The immense respect that the United States is developing for the People’s Republic of China is based on the idea that China is a military power whose strength cannot be underestimated. It has the largest standing army in the world and its weaponry strength is rising too. The same case applies to Russia, whereby the Russian state has behaved in a way that the United States has considered improper in the recent past such as the invasion of Georgia and the United States has not threatened military action. This is because Russia’s arms strength is equally immense.

On the other hand, the realists have fallen flat on their faces as far as prevention of war or the avoidance of war is concerned. The First World War and the Second World War witnessed active arms races with Germany, France, Russia, Italy, and the United States pursuing arms. But in the long run, there was war and the devastation would not be escaped. This is evidence that arming does not necessarily prevent war. Wars therefore happen for other reasons such as the absence of a means of sorting out differences. Also, the international order is in such a way that a balance of arms between some states does not foster world peace. Russia, the United States and some European countries are all nuclear powers and yet this has not led to peace. What about the identity theory?

Conclusion

Identity as a theory simply moves with either the liberal position or the realist perspective depending on the choices made by individual states in relation to other states. This, according to me does not give a tangible reason for war. Which explanation for war makes more sense between these three perspectives?

The liberal perspective reinforces the current trend of shared interests and globalization. Non-state actors such as terrorism that affect all states and the recent financial crisis have brought states together. This is a sign that in the presence of well organized platforms for dealing with interstate conflicts, war can be avoided. Therefore the wars we are witnessing are due to ineffective diplomacy and inefficient conflict resolution platforms.

Healthcare has been a pressing political issue in the United States (US) for many years now. Pertinent issues have always revolved around accessibility, costs, reforming health insurance, the social implications of providing a universal health care system and the extent of government involvement in the whole matter. The current president, Barrack Obama initiated healthcare reforms that passed both the House of Representatives and the senate in late 2009 after which he signed the healthcare bill into law in March 2010 to kick start a series of economic reforms that has over the decades eluded the American society.

America is termed as one of the developed countries with the highest healthcare costs when compared to the economic makeup of the country. Other developed countries have been able to achieve a universal form of health insurance for everyone but the US has in the past lagged behind in this respect. The Obama reforms are projected to provide health insurance to a number of Americans who have in the past lacked health insurance especially in this age where it is estimated that a great number of baby boomers are quickly ageing and exerting more pressure on the American healthcare system.

The new reforms have however sparked a lot of debate in and out of media houses especially on matters relating to tax reforms, incentives in the health care system, staffing issues, technological adoption of procedures in medicine and such like factors. Proponents and critics of these reforms have been able to marshal support from the general citizenry and build opposite opinions over the same issue. This study seeks to analyze these views in the context of a social and liberal analysis of the matter with a possible conclusion on the most appropriate analogy and perspective to look at the debate.

Social Analysis

A social analysis of the health care debate would propose a streamline of the capitalistic system of healthcare to make it conform to modern ethical principles. However, this system would still maintain and rely on a capitalistic form of production as opposed to overhauling the entire system to create a new healthcare structure. A social democratic analysis of the healthcare system would therefore seek to create a welfare state that seeks to cater to the needs of everyone by providing a system that empowers the citizens economically through economic democracy to secure their healthcare insurance (Eldred 3).

Socialism, as adopted in Europe encouraged gradualism which will little by little change the capitalistic economies to create a collective system of control. This analysis would therefore mean that the healthcare system can be totally changed to accommodate all Americans if the current capitalistic system which only provides healthcare to those who can afford it is amended. The social principles are in contrary to the Marxist principles which strongly advocate for a capitalistic system because social democracy purports that social system is aimed at empowering the working class in one way or the other (Eldred 3).

The social democratic system seeks to give Americans the freedom needed in seeking health care services and also the freedom from being discriminated against gender, class, or racial platforms. It also provides Americans the freedom from being abused by the wealthy and those in power. The social democracy theory also purports that health are reforms would instill a sense of equality in social, cultural and political aspects as well as to the marginalized in the society. Finally, the social democratic theory advances the fact that empathy would be given to the less fortunate in the society.

Liberal Analysis

From a liberal point of view, there is an importance in creating regulations or controls to the healthcare reform. For instance, it is important to impose copyright laws to protect against wrongs such as defamation. However, such regulations or limitations may go unchecked and in some instances, seem unfair. Nonetheless, proponents of this point of view purport that it is important to instill regulations on the healthcare system because it is the true mark of democracy. For example, it would be wrong to give people who advocate for murder the freedom of free speech (Eldred 4).

According to the liberal theory, giving restrictions to a small number of people does not necessarily amount to a qualitative compromise of the healthcare system but a quantitative check. Creating controls to a specific group of the American population can therefore be seen as a creating some form of liberal democracy like that which was applied to communist states (Eldred 4).

The liberal theory therefore advocates for the status quo in the healthcare sector because in the past, there were insurance controls on a selected minority of Americans (about 10%) of the population. The theory is therefore against a universal access to healthcare for all Americans because it is of the opinion that many Americans have the liberty to choose whichever category to fall into (either the insured or uninsured) and it isn’t the responsibility of the state to make such a decision on their behalf. According to the liberalists such kind of controls are not necessarily severe but meant to uphold democracy (Eldred 4).

Comparison/Analysis

The social theory seeks to create a state welfare that caters for the needs of all Americans while the liberalist theory discriminates on a selected few. Evidently, the liberal theory advocates for a status quo because the American healthcare system has been largely discriminatory. Its discriminatory nature has created a headache to the American population because citizens have always wanted to reform it because of its shortcomings. These shortcomings evidently represent the shortcomings of the liberal theory. The social theory is therefore an improvement to the liberal theory because it seeks to create more state involvement in the provision of healthcare to all Americans. In other words, it seeks to cater for the shortcomings of the Liberal theory because it eliminates inequalities and injustices created by the liberal theory. The liberal theory therefore seems to be retrogressive while the social theory is progressive.

Conclusion

A universal health care system has been achieved not only in America but in many first world countries as well. In fact, America being one of the world’s superpower should have been way ahead in implementing such a healthcare policy. The liberal theory seems to create controls on such kind of universal healthcare systems and history has proved it ineffective, hence the adoption of the social theory which advocates for the universal healthcare system implemented by Obama. Contrary to most critic views, this system solves many of societal problems brought about by the liberal theory.

References

Eldred, Michael. Liberal Vs Social Democracy. 2003. Web.

According to the data obtained from the Freedom House website, Canada is one of the strongest liberal democracies across the globe. The press freedom score index stands at 20 while economic environment has been rated at 6. The political and legal environments have score indices of 9 and 6 respectively. On the other hand, Brazil is a typical example of illiberal democracy since its overall status has been rated by Freedom House as “partly free”. It has a rather weak press freedom that stands at a score of 46 while the economic environment is rated at 11. The political score is 22 and the legal environment is 13 (Freedom of the Press, 2014).

It is prudent to mention that a representative democracy operates in a liberal democracy. In other words, the minority rights are safeguarded in all forms of governances that embrace liberal democracy. Elections that are competitive, free and fair are also held in liberal democracies. Zakaria (1997) notes that liberal democracies permit the state of political competition through the registration of several political parties that are distinct in nature. The author also argues that liberal democracies allow the separation of powers among the core organs of the state. Hence, governance in liberal democracies is attained through coordination of various branches of government. Power or authority is heavily devolved in such democracies even in the presence of a powerful central or federal government.

In addition, Zakaria (1997) is of the opinion that for a government to be described as liberal, it must reinforce the rule of law from the top to the lower levels of governance. An open society can only exist when the rule of law is fully exercised. In addition, civil liberties, rights of the civilians and general human rights are equally safeguarded through the existing rules of law. Every citizen in a liberal democracy is guaranteed of protection from the government and the ability to exercise political freedom. The author has also stressed the importance of a well drawn constitutional document in a liberal democracy. Government powers are delineated through a constitution in a liberal democracy. It is through the given set of rules that the social contract between the incumbent and the public can be understood.

Nonetheless, an illiberal democracy like Brazil does not exercise the full attributes of a democratic government. Zakaraia (1997) clearly underscores that illiberal democracies are rapidly emerging and spreading across the world. As much as elections are held in such democracies, the elements of open society and civil liberties are non-existent. A hybrid regime or a low intensity democracy is practiced in any form of an illiberal democracy. This type of democracy is neither democratic nor nondemocratic. In other words, such a regime tends to embrace the ideals of both nondemocratic and democratic governments.

Zakaria observes that illiberal democracies may have well written constitutions in place even though the provisions in those constitutions are hardly practiced. Worse still, the absence of a sufficient legal constitutional framework also hinders full implementation of most constitutions that have been adopted by illiberal democracies.

The basic rights, freedoms and privileges of individuals represented by illiberal democracies are usually infringed. For instance, the freedoms of religion, speech or press are not guaranteed in illiberal democracies. Zakaria (1997) emphasizes that centralized regimes are common in illiberal democracies and have been largely caused by remarkable lapse between constitutional liberalism and democracy. As a result, a number of illiberal democracies have landed into conflicts coupled with ethnic competition and weak civil liberties.

References

Freedom of the Press. (2014). Web.

Zakaria, F. (1997). The rise of illiberal democracy. Foreign Affairs, 76 (6), 22. Web.

Classical Liberalism

The closed bag of coins represents Classical Liberalism. The money itself represents the emphasis on the property that characterizes Classical Liberalism. The property, for example, is one of the three elements of life that Locke felt was critical and central to be safeguarded. The bag as a collector and protector of money represents the outcome of the application of the principles of Classical Liberalism. Under the principles of Classical Liberalism, the accumulation of wealth as possible, and even dramatically successful.

The fact that there is a bag and not a hand represents the fact that under Classical Liberalism, there is a tendency for the wealth to become more concentrated into the possession of a few people. It does not scatter into the possession of a large number of people. Note, as well, that there is only one bag – the coins are not distributed to anyone else involved in the work (whatever it was) that generated this profit.

This is also a bag that anyone could obtain – a simple bag that is readily available, just as the principles of Classical Liberalism suggest that all have an equal right to sell their labor, whether this is actually true in practical terms or not. This represents that anyone with the right resources, to begin with, could, at least in theory, manage to generate such a pile of coins. This may not have been universally true, because a laborer might not have the freedom ever to break loose from the hold of their employer.

Even if they could and did, where could they go? What better situation could a laborer find? Without a ‘character’ from a previous employer, how could a laborer find other employment? With no savings, how could a laborer acquire the means of either supporting themselves by agriculture or by some industry or craft of their own? Under welfare capitalism, some employers even arranged matters such that laborers were forever in debt to the company store.

The bag of coins is also visible, which represents that the fortunes accrued under the principles of Classical Liberalism are meant to be seen. In fact, the fortunes of the industrialist are intended to be admired and envied by everyone else. This is accomplished by building beautiful homes, driving beautiful carriages, and dressing and entertaining exquisitely.

The empty bowls represent the laborers that have actually generated the products that were sold to make all that money in the bag. Their bowls are empty because they are not paid enough to save or invest for themselves. They barely have enough to keep their bowl on the table. They cannot change employment readily without loss, so they are stuck with an empty bowl.

Everything about this symbol is meant to show the emphasis on PRIVATE PROPERTY as interpreted by entrepreneurs under the ideas and guidance of Classical Liberalism.

Modern Liberalism

The bowls with coins in them represent a more egalitarian distribution of wealth and benefits. This is, in very general terms, the goal of Modern Liberalism. Rather than keeping the profits from work in the hands of only a few, the aim of Modern Liberalism is to ensure that everyone gets something. The coins are divided among many bowls (or as many as can be fitted into the photo) to represent that the profit accrued from the labor of many people is to be shared by the many people who generated this profit.

Under Modern Liberalism, it may well be that no one person accrues as much money as under Classical Liberalism. However, each person does get a portion of the wealth created by his or her labor. If there is a cooperation between labor and employers, there is the opportunity for greater efficiency, the more moderate shades of Modern Liberalism assert. If there is efficiency in the production of goods, food, and everything else, then there will be more to sell.

This will mean that everyone will be better off in the long run because there will be more income from trade and sales. Of course, under Modern Liberalism, there is a recognition that the wealthiest capitalists may lose some advantage associated with their former absolute control over the labor input to production. If labor has a say and protection from whimsical or hard-nosed decisions regarding employment, pay, benefits, or working conditions, then perhaps the industrialist will lose some portion of their dramatic profits. To the industrialist, it may seem as though they will be losing out. However, even under profit-sharing and cooperation with labor, Modern Liberalism contends that everyone will be able to survive.

In the most extreme flavors of Communism, the idea is that there are no profits anymore, and no commerce at all. The products of labor are shared with everyone. Thus, the mill-owner’s bag has just a few coins in it. There are not even any markets anymore. According to Marx and his disciples, one way to achieve this end is by the worker class accumulating enough awareness, will, and other tools for activism, such that they can stage a revolution – possibly a violent one.

They acknowledged that this ideal situation might need to be achieved by violence, with the laborers rising up and overthrowing the owners of mills, factories, and other enterprises by force. When the revolution comes, under this model, everyone will work for his or her fellow citizens and not for personal gain. Thus, the symbol shows that every bowl has just about the same amount of coins in it, and the bag has a couple as well, but no more than any worker’s bowl.

In fact, in the case of a revolution, the bag representing the mill owner might be, literally, eliminated. The individual and their whole social class would be wiped out whether by getting rid of them or by appropriating their private property for the use of society as a whole. This situation has arisen in a number of places, not always with complete success in the long run.

Thus, every aspect of this visual symbol is meant to represent the shared, communal aspects of Modern Liberalism. Rather than promoting the interests of the individual who risks their own fortunes to invest or innovate, Modern Liberalism promotes distribution of the production of society to all, such that they all have a bit of the benefit. Whether by revolution or by a gradual increase in the power and role of a central government, this ideology, in all its forms, has affected many nations and continues to do so to this day. It is certainly evident in the way that Canada has chosen to manage the problem of scarce resources.

Introduction

Lakoff observes that morality shapes American political discussions and the US politicians have tendencies to apply morality approaches in discussing a variety of topics such as foreign affairs, social issues, immigration, healthcare, and taxes among others after every four years of the general election campaigns to advocate their different ideologies to supporters.

Lakoff notes that diverse political stands of conservatives and liberals come from various mental models of a family to which such politicians appeal. He uses the metaphor of Left (nurturant parent) and Right (strict father). Lakoff puts the state as a family and the government as a parent to illustrate opposing political views of conservatives/Right and liberals/Left even when the two use same the metaphor to discuss the same topic such as abortion, social programs, and immigration among others. According to Lakoff, this “explains why liberals and conservatives could seem to be talking about the same thing and yet reach opposite conclusions – and why they could seem to be talking past each other with little understanding much of the time” (Lakoff 12).

Nurturant Parent Model

Lakoff’s nurturant parent model looks at empathy, fair distribution, restitution, love, and nurturance as important elements in family. The fundamental ideas about this model are care, love, happiness, and getting meaning out of mutual relationships. The model highlights that children’s obedience originates from love for parents and the community. It is not out of fear of punishment. Lakoff notes “children become responsible, self-disciplined, and self-reliant through being cared for and respected, and through caring for others” (Lakoff 108). Liberals see regulations as a means of “protection of those who cannot protect themselves” (Lakoff 210).

This was President Obama’s approach after the financial crisis by “proposing new rules to protect consumers and a new consumer financial protection agency to enforce those rules”. This is Lakoff’s point when he noted that government regulation “doesn’t hurt or cheat anyone” (Lakoff 210).

Strict Father Model

This model emphasizes the father to have the main role of protecting and providing for the family, and respect for the authority in developing and enforcing rules that control behaviors of children. The mother’s roles are day-to-day house chores and raising children (Lakoff 66). However, upholding the authority rests with the father.

Parental authority in Strict Father Model outweighs love and nurturance and children must learn respect for authority, self-respect, self-reliance, and self-discipline (Lakoff 66). These qualities will enable children to be on their own, and control their destinies with no parental interference. Mike Huckabee says “John McCain is a man with the character and the stubborn kind of integrity that we need in a president” (CQ Transcriptions 1). This description fits a Strict Father Model.

Military spending

Conservatives have demonstrated opposing views in matters related to military spending. They are eager to increase military spending as Ronald Reagan did when “he increased military spending significantly” (Lakoff 192). Conversely, the Liberals “see other priorities as more important than the military (Lakoff 193)”, thus, in 2007, Obama noted “war in Iraq was ill-conceived venture and a waste of resources” while Mitt Romney claimed the US spent “$700B well to win freedom in Iraq” (OntheIssues 2012).

Social welfare programs

American campaign trends show that conservatives do not advocate for welfare programs and assistance for needy people as Huckabee says “Now, I get a little tired of hearing how the Democrats care so much for the working guy as if all Republicans grew up with silk stockings and silver spoons” (CQ Transcriptions 1). This is what Mitt Romney is doing about the Obama healthcare program by insisting “Obamacare will lead the nation in the wrong direction” (Romney 2012). He opposes the use of government funds to provide healthcare for majorities in need.

Liberals believe that it is the role of the government to help citizens in need and promotes social welfare programs such as healthcare, and human rights among others. This is what Lakoff notes “to do something to help out the people at the bottom, at least to provide for their basic needs and to give them enough education and job training to allow them to do a bit better” (Lakoff 202). Consequently, the Obama administration’s Department of Health and Human Services has responded to this by “expressing a willingness to grant states waivers for some work requirements, under certain conditions” (Pareene, 2012).

On the other hand, conservatives believe that the citizens should be independent, self-reliant, and self-disciplined; thus should help themselves. The liberals present them as moral programs. They help people (nurture and empathy) facilitate reinforcement of the government (self-nurture) and encouraging fairness through a leveled platform. Lakoff notes “Wealthy liberals, however, want their money to go as directly as possible to the downtrodden and oppressed” (Lakoff 418).

They view unsupportive citizens as “immoral, irresponsible citizens” (Lakoff 179). For the conservatives, the social programs serve as units barring citizens from independence and self-sufficiency. Mickey Kaus criticize Obama’s welfare program as “weakening or being seen as weakening, the work requirements send the “wrong signal” to the lazy Americans” (Pareene, 2012). They view such programs as physically and morally weakening citizens and interfering with the abilities of citizens of seizing opportunities (Lakoff 181).

Abortion

Abortion to the Nurturant Parent Model is moral. Rocky Anderson says “Abortion is a woman’s right” and we should “leave abortion decision to those most intimately involved” (OntheIssues 2012). Conservatives consider abortion as an immoral practice. According to Michele Bachmann “Life is the first right. I’m 100% pro-life from conception” (OntheIssues 2012). This means that the Strict Father Model supporting conservative view abortion as sheer irresponsibility while the liberals supporting liberals see nothing wrong with the action. Strict Father Model believes “abortion would simply sanction immoral behavior” among teenage girls who engage in sex before marriage (Lakoff 267).

Conservatives oppose social issues such as abortion by claiming that they need to protect the lives of unborn fetuses. Mike Huckabee says “No tax funding for organizations that promote abortion” (OntheIssues 2012). They fight such successful programs. This does not make sense to liberals as Hillary Clinton supports abortion by saying “make abortion rare by supporting adoption and foster care” (OntheIssues 2012).

Illegal migration

Illegal migration reflects another disagreeable issue between the liberals and the conservatives. The liberals view illegal immigrants as “blameless and subjects to exploitations by employers or available job opportunities and by throwing them away, would be an immoral act as they provide values to the nation and households” (Lakoff 188). This may explain the recent move by President Obama on “lifting the deportation of hundreds of thousands of undocumented young people in the US” (Cook 1).

To the conservatives, “the illegal aliens are noncitizens and are not part of the nation’s family” (Lakoff 187). Mit Romney talks tough on illegal immigrants and their employers “So what I would do is, number one, have a system that makes it easy for an employer to know who is legal and not. And number two, a crackdown on employers that hire people illegally”. Therefore, the nation does not authorize them to access goods and services as they are more of children that push to a home uninvited (Dean 2006).

Gay marriage

Romney expresses his opposition to gay marriage as “I agree with 3000 years of recorded history. … I have been rock solid in my support of traditional marriage”. This shows Lakoff’s view of Conservatives promoting “traditional morality” in society. Conversely, President Obama’s stands on social issues present liberal views. For instance, the President said he feels “absolutely comfortable” with same-sex marriages” reflects his liberal views on matters that are central in American politics (O’Keefe 3).

Models and American Politics

Conservative has developed a model citizen that fits certain descriptions. According to conservative values, a model citizen has to uphold conservative views and be able to support them. The citizen must also be self-disciplined and self-reliant, support the idea of reward and punishment, and must support moral citizens and moral orders (Lakoff 211).

According to conservative model citizens, these citizens fit several descriptions. Conservative model citizens have acquired their wealth through hard work, and are successful due to their self-discipline; thus, should deserve to keep whatever they have acquired. Huckabee supports this idea as follows “I’m a Republican because I didn’t want to spend the rest of my life poor, waiting for the government to rescue me” (CQ Transcriptions 1).

We must note that conservative model citizens have not received any aid from the government, instead, they have created wealth and success on their own. According to the American dream, any self-disciplined, honest, and hardworking citizen can achieve success. However, President Clinton committed to “increase child care and food assistance for families, particularly through the Head Start and the Women, Infants and Children programs”. Liberals, according to Lakoff, it is a means of “protection of those who cannot protect themselves” (Lakoff 210). This is annoying to conservatives.

Conservatives have refined their ideas and languages in American politics. This observation makes Lakoff conclude as follows “conservatives are relatively aware of how their politics relates to their views of family life and morality, liberals are less aware of the implicit view of morality and the family that organizes their own political beliefs” (Lakoff 31). Consequently, a lack of awareness among liberals has resulted in devastating effects on the liberal cause.

Lakoff admires the cleverness and intelligence of conservative politicians but condemns them for fostering an unhealthy society that promotes a culture of exclusion, divisiveness, and blames society. Conservatives mainly focus on responsibility, discipline, self-reliance, upholding the family and government values, enhancing the pursuit of self-interest, and protecting the state from external aggressors. Conversely, liberals’ ideologies revolve around fairness, enhancing personal fulfillment, helping, and protecting minorities who cannot protect themselves.

Conclusion

Conservatives have a clear ideology on what constitutes an ideal family with the father as the head. This is the nuclear family that sees a family as a crucial element in the building of a society that transforms its members into capable and independent people. The government is also an autonomous body with authority over citizens. Thus, citizens are subject to the state and abide by the state authority. However, liberals do not have such clear distinctions.

Lakoff puts liberals as holding a communitarian view on family. Both parents may be present in a family, but the mother takes the core responsibility with the community controlling the legitimate role in the affairs of the family. Politically, liberals view the state as the parent and citizens as children who need nurturing and guidance under their parents’ houses.

Applying to politics, a liberal state will have no limit to nurturing. It will go the extra mile to mind the citizen’s welfare. The state will do anything for the citizen. However, conservatives’ government is better as it lays rules for its citizens and leaves them. It serves more like a “daddy state” whose duty is to encourage, mentor, and discipline. He respects boundaries enough but comes in when the bending of rules takes place. However, conservatives and liberals have their differences notably from the way each side argue against issues such as social welfare programs, abortion, and illegal immigrants.

American conservative politics may be advanced than liberal politics due to the articulation of their views, both in language and actions. Lakoff praises conservatives for their political cleverness but supports liberals for their nurturing approach. We must also note that Lakoff presents his ideas objectively by pointing out “both conservatives and liberals are sometimes not internally logical, and consistent with their principles and philosophical views” (Lakoff 14). He notes that inconsistencies may result from various metaphor politicians apply in different situations.

Works Cited

Cook, Michael. “Letter: Obama’s move on immigration is the right thing to do.” Gloucester Times, 6 (2012): 1-2. Print.

CQ Transcriptions. “Mike Huckabee’s Convention Speech.” The New York Times: Politics (2008): 1-2. Print.

Dean, John. Conservatives without Conscience. New York: Viking Penguin, 2006. Print.

Lakoff, George. Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002. Print.

O’Keefe, Ed. “For Obama, gay marriage stance born of a long evolution.” The Washington Post, 4 (2012): 1-3. Print.

on the issues. Every Political Leader on Every Issue. 2012. Web.

Pareene, Alex. Triangulators panic: Obama weakening welfare reform? 2012. Web.

Romney, Mitt. Health Care: Repeal and Replace Obamacare. 2011. Web.

The Canadian government and Marijuana (Mutti, p.12)

Marijuana is a harmful substance that can corrupt children.

Children are the future generation.

Therefore, marijuana can corrupt an entire generation.

Kittens need to be trained

Higher animals can be taught.

Kittens are higher animals.

Therefore, kittens can be taught.

Is it possible for two glass beads to be identical (Rudinow & Barry, p.7)

For two glass beads to be identical they would have to contain the same silica molecules, atoms, quarks, neutrinos, and in the same place and at the same time.

There are no two glass beads that contain the same silica molecules, atoms, quarks, neutrinos, and in the same place and at the same time.

Therefore, there are no identical glass beads.

Hypothetical syllogism

A person can only vote if he/she is a registered voter. If you are eligible to vote then you are a registered voter.

A person can only be elected if he/she is a member of a political party. If you are qualified to run then you are a member of a political party.

Categorical syllogism

All patriots are registered, voters.

Patriots love their country.

Therefore, all registered voters are patriots.

All taxpayers are registered, voters.

All registered voters can read.

Therefore, all taxpayers can read.

Argument by elimination

It is possible that Obama voted in the latest provincial election.

Only Canadian citizens can vote in a provincial election.

Obama is not a Canadian citizen, therefore he did not vote.

John Kuizomi may be a member of a Canadian political party.

Only Canadian citizens can become a member of a political party.

John Kuizomi is not a Canadian citizen therefore he is not a member of a Canadian political party.

Argument based on mathematics

Only elected officials in the 2011 provincial elections can serve until 2015. Therefore, elected officials in the 2007 provincial elections cannot serve until 2015.

Elected officials in the 2003 provincial elections can serve only up to 2007.

Therefore, elected officials in the 2003 provincials elections cannot serve beyond the 2007 period.

Argument from the definition

The liberal party supports a socially compassionate government.

Bob Rae is a supporter of socially compassionate governments.

Therefore, Bob Rae is liberal.

A member of the Canadian parliament secured its position by winning in the polls.

Lowell Murray is a Senator.

Therefore, Lowell Murray secured his position by winning in the polls.

Inductive

Inductive generalization

Fifty percent of the 100 randomly selected registered voters would choose someone from the liberal party.

It is probable, therefore, that approximately fifty percent of registered voters would choose someone from the liberal party.

Sixty percent of the 100 randomly selected registered voters were happy with the results of the election.

It is probable, therefore, that approximately sixty percent of registered voters were happy with the results of the election.

Predictive argument

Most of the time, Canadians will choose a leader from the liberal party. Therefore, the next leader would come from the liberal party.

Most of the time voters will choose someone with a good reputation.

Therefore, the next leader is someone with a good reputation.

Argument from authority

According to poll experts, the liberal party will win a landslide victory.

Therefore, the liberal party will win a landslide victory.

According to Information Technology experts, it is extremely difficult to tamper with election results. Therefore, the results of the elections can be considered valid.

Causal argument

The significant number of people recorded to have used their cameras last week is correlated to the high number of journalists that covered the provincial elections.

The significant number of people recorded to have used their cameras last week is not the cause of the provincial elections.

There is no third event that caused both the increase in the number of people who have used their cameras and the high number of journalists that covered the provincial elections.

Therefore, the provincial election is the cause of the significant increase in the use of cameras.

The significant number of people recorded to have used their laptops last week is correlated to the high number of journalists that covered the provincial election.

The significant number of people that used their laptops is not the cause of the provincial election.

There is no third party that caused the increased usage of the laptop.

Therefore, the provincial election is the cause of the significant increase in the use of laptops.

Statistical argument

Seventy percent of the people surveyed in Ontario believed in the integrity of their government. Therefore, a majority of the people living in Ontario believed that they have an honest government.

Thirty percent of the people surveyed in Ontario would like to elect an honest man to office. Therefore, only a small percentage of the general population would like to elect an honest official.

Argument from analogy

A childish person cannot make up his mind.

Some registered voters cannot make up their minds.

Therefore, some registered voters are childish.

A candidate is a very busy man come election time.

Lee is not busy during election time.

Therefore, Lee is not a candidate.

Works Cited

Mutti, Robert. Making up Your Mind. Ontario: Broadview Press, 2002.

Rudinow, Joel & Vincent Barry. Invitation to Critical Thinking. CA: Thomson Higher Education, 2007.

The philosophy of liberalism

Liberalism encompasses three views. First, it views society as a cooperative social venture. The success or failure of projects is determined by the level of social cooperation. Thus, poor social cooperation will lead to project failure. Likewise, adequate cooperation will lead to the success of projects. Besides, rules governing cooperation in regard to social venture should be written by members of the society. These rules directly affect participants. Therefore, there is a need to have rules that cater to the interests of all people.

Secondly, liberalism integrates natural and social lottery. This aspect accommodates different social positions and natural endowments. This determines the chances and possibilities of acquiring wealth, resources, and income. However, it views these differences as random. They are not inherited or even deserved. In fact, it rejects privileges conferred to people at birth.

Liberalism encompasses two crucial principles. First, there is the principle of equal basic civil liberties. The second principle addresses social and economic inequalities. Social and economic inequalities are permissible if they are attached to positions integrating fairness and equality. This principle requires formal equality before the law. There should be no discrimination based on education and economic opportunities. Job opportunities, promotions, and access to public office should be based on fairness. Besides, there should be no segregation with regard to buying and selling. Likewise, liberalism emphasizes the provision of skills and other tools needed to enhance fair competition. This will enhance equality in competing for economic and education opportunities.

The other aspect is the difference principle. Here, rules and regulations in regard to matters of social and economic importance should be formulated to benefit the least-advantaged members of society.

What do you think is the main strength of liberalism, in comparison with the current plutocracy?

The main strength is the principle regarding the provision of skills, tools, and resources needed to enhance competition in a fair way. This will ensure that unfair practices associated with the wealthy class are eliminated. What is more, it will provide equal economic opportunities to all people. This will ensure that there is peaceful co-existence among the people and adequate cooperation that will facilitate economic development.

What is its main weakness?

In my opinion, there is a weakness in regard to equal opportunity among all people. It is not clear whether resources and tools should be provided even too lazy people. There is a need to emphasize hard work among all people if resources are to be distributed equally.

Likewise, this principle fails to address the royal class in society. It is not practical for the common man to access tools and resources for the competition to the same extent as a person from a noble family. Thus, there is an assumption regarding this matter. This is the greatest weakness associated with equality when it comes to the distribution of resources and tools among the noble class and the common persons.

Liberalism deems unequal distribution of wealth as a challenge. This is a weakness in regard to the principle of liberalism. Various measures are being implemented to solve the same issue. However, the impact is yet to be felt. There have been challenges encompassing equal distribution of wealth. Besides, the gap between the underprivileged and the moneyed continues to widen. Liberalists have carried out numerous campaigns to sensitize people on the importance of equal wealth distribution and its importance. Besides, governments have embraced tax systems that aim to tax the wealthy more than the poor. Devolved governments have also been formed to facilitate equality in wealth distribution. This is significant because it leads to uniform development that eliminates poverty.