Jeffs POLITICAL SCIENCE SUPPLEMENT

Political Science 1: Introduction to the Government of the United States

A critical and in-depth understanding of the Government of the United States relies upon
knowledge of political concepts. While a wide variety of conceptual frameworks can help
explain American politics, these lecture notes examine three categories of political concepts.
First is a short summary of basic concepts that serve as building blocks for the study of U.S.
government. A review of political, economic and social ideologies relevant for understanding
American politics follows. Finally, a brief review of political theory provides an introduction
into the philosophical origins of government in the United States and its policies.
Part 1 - Basic Concepts
To identify concepts as political, begs the question what is political. On the one hand, it may
appear obvious that the word political refers to something that is of or related to politics or
government. Consequently, being knowledgeable about political concepts means you have some
understanding of politics or government. But what is politics or government?
Politics was described by political scientist Harold D. Lasswell as the process for deciding who
gets what, when and how. Obvious examples who gets what, when and how could include
Congress deciding to increase the minimum wage or California voters rejecting a reduction in
community college fees. In addition to these formal decisions, politics may be informal, such as
when a boss ignores company policy and promotes a brownnoser as their personal favorite.
Similarly, members of Congress do much of their work behind closed doors where decisions
reflect the personal power of key players. Whether the example is office politics, backroom deals
or politics of the bedroom, it should be clear that who gets what, when and how is often
determined informally and permeates our life.
If we break down this definition of "politics," we can see that "who gets what" suggests
somebody is getting a thing, like a resource, while "when and how" refers to a decision-making
process. Making or influencing these decisions requires power. In this context, power is the use
of resources to get what you want. Moreover, by using resources to decide or influence who
gets what, when and how, people may get more resources. Hence, power begets power.
Usually we think of power as coercive. Coercive power occurs when a person gets another
person to do something they would not otherwise do. It is about force. In American politics, a
subtle example of coercive power is when people feel compelled to follow laws they dislike.
Politics also involves enabling power, which refers to the development of resources through
cooperation and mutual support. People will often pool together their own resources to gain
better access to government, e.g. forming an interest group or getting somebody elected.
Whether coercive or enabling, power is both the means and the ends of politics.
We usually associate politics with government, and for good reason. Government formally
establishes rules that determine much about who gets what, when and how. Indeed, in this
June 2013

Poli Sci 1, Hernandez, ELAC

June 2013

Political Science Supplement

Page 2 of 20

class, we define government as rulership. The governments rules are the law, enforceable and
accepted with the public as the authority. The highest level of rulemaking authority rests with a
sovereign government.
Sovereignty refers to the highest level of government, when there is no higher level of authority.
Any sovereign government by definition has political autonomy or independence, i.e., freedom
from any other governing power. The political autonomy of a sovereign government is
associated with the principle of self-determination, i.e., the right of govern ones self. The fact
that a sovereign government can command people, businesses and others to follow its rules is an
indication of its authority as well as the legitimacy conferred by its citizens.
A sovereign governments authority is the actual capacity it has to command, which requires a
monopoly on coercive power. When push comes to shove, governments have demonstrated their
coercive power through the actual use of force. Normally the coercive power of the United
States government is present as a constant threat of force that lies in the background or in our
memory. A governments threat of force may be so subtle that it does not seem to exist at all
until we learn of government crackdowns, such as occurred in May 2007 in Los Angeles against
immigrant rights supporters. Since September 11, 2001, the U.S. government has increasingly
employed subtle and not so subtle forms of coercive power in the name of homeland security.
A government has legitimacy when the people follow its rules. We can always question the
democratic legitimacy or moral legitimacy of a dictator. But if the people are following a
dictators orders than the dictator has minimal level of legitimacy need for de facto rulership.
Before the U.S. government ousted him, Saddam Hussein used force to ensure the legitimacy of
his rule. Similarly, the U.S. government has been relying upon force to help ensure the
legitimacy of the current Iraqi government.
When a government has trouble getting people to follow its laws, its legitimacy is threatened and
it must rely upon coercive power. This occurred during the Civil Unrest of 1992 that followed
the acquittal of police officers involved in the beating of Rodney King. In spite of many
examples of political conflicts, such as the widespread protest against War with Iraq or the AntiGlobalization Battle in Seattle in 1999, many Americans may argue that their government is a
democracy because they believe it ensures their freedom and equality. But what is democracy?
Based on its Greek origins, the word democracy refers to rule by the people. In a direct
democracy, the people make the laws. In this form of government, also called a pure democracy
or classical democracy, the people are the rulers. However, in the United States, representatives,
chosen through elections, make nearly all of the law. Indeed, no national government today can
claim to function primarily as a direct democracy. For this reason, the U.S. government and
other governments have been described by some as examples of indirect democracy, also
referred to as a representative democracy, electoral democracy, or democratic republic. In an
indirect democracy, the people select representatives who rule in the interest of the people.
Theoretically, the people would be the rulers, albeit indirectly. But are you a ruler?

Poli Sci 1, Hernandez, ELAC

June 2013

Political Science Supplement

Page 3 of 20

This last question leads to the first challenge facing any society seeking to have democracy,
namely, participation of the people. Even an indirect democracy requires that the people
participate by holding their representatives accountable on Election Day. In other words, an
election is job evaluation time and elected officials should be just as nervous about it as any
other worker would be. But is that so? Given the low rates of political knowledge and
participation, it is doubtful that participation is sufficient to ensure accountability.
Similarly, the definition of rule by the people suggests that each member of the public will
have equal influence in rulership. For this reason, equality is another challenge facing any
democracy. Minimally, this would involve procedural equality in the rules governing
participation, also referred to as political equality. Procedural equality means the rules treat
people the same. Generally, the rules governing participation in the United States political
system do treat people the same but that does not mean people have equal influence. What is
lacking in all democratic societies is substantive equality concerning participation.
Substantive equality refers to people having equal resources. When comes to resources needed
for influencing government, people are not equal.
Even if a society could successfully meet the challenges of participation and equality, the
definition of democracy implies yet another challenge: the dangers inherent in majority rule.
Most people recognize majority rule (50% + 1) as how most decisions are made in a democracy.
But if the same majority always wins, those in the minority never get a chance rule. If
unchecked, majority rule may turn into the majority ruling over the minority, instead of rule by
the people. When a dominant majority uses this advantage to harm the interests of others, you
no longer have democracyyou have majoritarianism. This potential concerned the framers of
the U.S. Constitution and some have described the American system as majority rule with
minority rights.
Even though the definition of democracy, i.e. rule by the people, only requires a minimal level of
civil liberties and civil rights necessary for political participation, Americans have many more
constitutional guarantees that protect minorities and individuals. These constitutional principles
reflect Americas liberal democratic political tradition. Liberal democracy refers to rule by the
people with guarantees of freedom and equality. Given that all governments require legitimacy,
a liberal democracy faces the special challenge of balancing its use of coercive power to ensure
people obey the laws and the constitutional limits on its power to interfere in an individuals
freedom, i.e. balancing legitimacy and civil liberties. Liberal democratic governments are not
supposed to limit individual freedom arbitrarily; restrictions on liberty require good reason.
In addition to this challenge, liberal democracy involves a conflict between those who want more
liberty and those who want society to be more equal, i.e. balancing civil liberties and civil rights.
When the United States was founded, it was commonly understood that liberty meant people
could run their private lives, including economic activity, as they chose to without government
interference. For generations, this meant liberal democracy condoned racial, gender, and class
inequality. Social movements and reformists won victories for greater equality and, thereby,
redefined liberal democracy to include protections for civil rights, womens rights and workers
rights. But these gains in equality have resulted in the loss of liberty for others. For example,

Poli Sci 1, Hernandez, ELAC

June 2013

Political Science Supplement

Page 4 of 20

throughout American history, labor activists, socialists and reformers have asserted that most
workers are denied their economic freedom due to the harm and exploitation they endure in a
capitalist economy. Indeed, in 1968, just before his death, civil rights leader Dr. Martin Luther
King sought to organize poor people of all races on the premise that poverty would have to be
abolished for all people to enjoy freedom. But government social welfare programs and worker
protections, such as increases in the minimum wage, have been opposed by many wealthy
individuals and businesses as unfairly requiring them to pay higher taxes and limiting their
freedom to make decisions pertaining to their business. Consequently, complicating the
challenge of liberal democratic governance in America is the fact that there are competing views
on how to organize our political, economic and social lives.
Part 2 Ideologies
The approach in this part of my notes is to examine political, economic and social ideologies that
help explain politics in the United States. An ideology is a complex system of beliefs and
practices about how the world should be organized. Clearly, many of us have our own ideas
about politics. When verbalized, these ideas can be called political attitudes. Sometimes, our
ideas about politics are also evident by our actions, even when we are not aware of it. Actions
that have political consequences can be called political behavior. Ideologies systematically
organize political attitudes and/or political behavior.
Ideologies are also evident in how institutions operate. Whether large or small, institutions are
guided, formally and informally, by ideologies. An institution is a systematic set of social
relationships that embodies common values, involves a regular or predictable pattern of
behavior, and is aimed at a shared purpose. The social, political and economic ideologies
defined in this part of my notes can also be thought of as systems for organizing institutions,
such as American culture, the political system, or the economy. Being familiar with each of the
following ideologies will help you to understand the structure and policies of the United States
government.
POLITICAL IDEOLOGIES & SYSTEMS
People have many conflicting ideas about how the political system (government, parties,
interests & citizens) should be organized and the extent to which political power should be
concentrated. Most of the ideologies central to issues raised in American politics advocate the
dispersal of political power in many hands. This reflects a general distrust in government shared
by many Americans. It also is an indication that democracy, rule by the people, is best achieved
with political equality and freedom. Below is a description of political ideologies, beginning
with those that advocate a complete decentralization of power and ending with those that
prescribe the greatest concentration of power.
Anarchism is the ideology that believes government must be overthrown and replaced with
self-rule because all social institutions with leaders and rules are exploitative and inherently evil.
Anarchists believe that no form of social organization can avoid being harmful to the individuals
in it because there will be people in charge and power corrupts. During the 1990s, in Portland,
Oregon, anarchists destroyed private property in a campaign against corporations and yuppie

Poli Sci 1, Hernandez, ELAC

June 2013

Political Science Supplement

Page 5 of 20

materialism. Anarchists can be thought of as extreme individualists. They believe self-rule by

each individual is the solution for bettering society. It is this point that makes anarchism
different from another extreme form of individualism, nihilism. Like the title and attitude of the
Black Flag punk rock hit of the early 1980's, No Values, nihilists advocate dismantling
institutions but do not really care about bettering society. Unlike the anarchist, the nihilist is an
individual who wants to advance her or his own ideas, interests, pleasure, or power even if it
harms the rest of society. By contrast, anarchists are sometimes guided by a view of human
nature that leads to humanitarianism and socialism.
Democratic Ideologies & Systems
Although not an ideology, direct democracy is a political system that has a long tradition, dating
back to Athens in Ancient Greece, and can be conduit for different ideologies. Direct democracy
is when the people make the laws. In its pure form, that would mean no representatives; no
elected politicians. Every citizen would have to participate in discussing and voting on any law.
In colonial America, civic republicans practiced direct democracy at Town Hall meetings.
They also advocated short, single terms for elected representatives and weak executives. Civic
republicanism was prevalent amongst anti-federalists who opposed the Constitution of 1787.
Today, populism is the ideology most associated with direct democracy. Many described the
recall of California Governor Gray Davis in 2003 as populist movement. A recall, initiative and
referendum are three examples of direct democracy in California elections. Recall refers to a
special election, caused by a citizen petition, where voters get to decide if they want to remove a
specific elected official from office. An initiative is a law drafted and proposed by citizens who
gathered sufficient signatures on a petition. Once proposed, initiatives are placed on the ballot
and decided upon by the voters. When citizens vote upon laws proposed or enacted by the
legislature, it is called a referendum. Jury duty is another example of direct democracy.
Critics of direct democracy have argued that a charismatic leader or a powerful elite, such as the
wealthy or the clergy, could manipulate the citizen lawmakers. Others have worried that direct
democracy could turn into tyranny by the majority, otherwise known as majoritarianism. Indeed,
the word ostracize comes from the practice in Athenian democracy of banishing undesirables
from society. Indeed, to restrict majoritarianism, direct democracies sometimes required a super
majority (e.g. 2/3) or unanimous consent for special matters. Direct democracy does not ensure
the best decisions will be made or that popular opinion will always rule, but it does advocate
processes where any member of the public can participate in decision making.
Population size does not explain why we do not make more use of direct democracy. Rather, the
reason is that most people simply do not want, or cannot spend time, to actively participate in
making laws. Thus, like most countries, we seek to have some form of indirect democracy, i.e.
rule by representatives selected by the people. The next four democratic ideologiespopulism,
pluralism, republicanism and libertarianismare versions of indirect democracy.
Populism advocates democratic rule based upon popular opinion or mass support. Populism is
sometimes called majoritarian democracy because the majoritys point of view is likely to be
most influence under this form of democracy than any other form. People seeking greater citizen

Poli Sci 1, Hernandez, ELAC

June 2013

Political Science Supplement

Page 6 of 20

participation in government, such as civic republicans, also fits the definition of populism.
Earlier in American history, populism emerged as a political force in the interest of the poor and
powerless, often in the form of a social movement. Some populist movements have been lead by
charismatic leaders. The populist President Andrew Jackson called himself the President for the
common man. Jesse Jackson in the 1980s, Ross Perot in the 1990s, and Barack Obama in 2008
demonstrated populist appeal by recruiting voters who were not previously active in politics.
Generally, populist movements have not had much long-term success in American politics due to
the power of entrenched interests. However, average citizens have been weary of populism at
times as well. One fear is that the cult of personality that surrounds populist leaders can lead to
majoritarianism or fascism. Hitler started as a populist leader. Another fear associated with
populism is that the majority will seek to restrict individual liberty or harm minority groups.
Pluralism offer greater protection from tyranny by the majority than direct democracy or
populism. It envisions a society where citizens are free to form interest groups and compete with
others for influence. The term marketplace of ideas is often associated with pluralism because it
advocates a diversity of opinions as well as freedom to associate with like-minded individuals.
Pluralism is an ideology that proposes a government ruled by many interests. It can be thought
of as democracy through interest groups and with a free exchange of ideas. By promoting equal
access for all groups, pluralism helps to enfranchise underrepresented minority groups.
However, interest groups do not have an equal resources for influencing legislators. Thus, while
poorer and underrepresented interests have equal opportunity to have influence, the wealthy and
powerful interest groups have more resources to have actual influence, which leaves many
discouraged. Moreover, while many different interest groups may represent their interests, most
members of society have not formally joined any interest group. Thus, the challenge for pluralist
democracy is to have sufficient regulations to avoid overrepresentation by powerful organized
interests to the detriment of the interests of the unorganized mass of citizens.
Given the multicultural reality of modern society, some call for cultural pluralism, which
advocates group rights for all cultural groups. In Canada, efforts have made to give group
rights to national minorities. However, a concern raised by feminists and others is that group
rights may have the effect of weakening the individual rights of group members.
Republicanism is the ideology that advocates representative democracy in the strictest sense. It
opposes populism and pluralism as harmful to functioning of a representative democracy.
Republicanism is different from civic republicanism. Civic republicanism refers to
participation in political life by average citizens for the good of the whole society, and today is
described as populism. In contrast, the ideology of republicanism proposes that representatives
can rule in the interest of society better than the general public or special interest groups. The
framers of the constitution favored republicanism because they did not trust public opinion.
Though they wanted to ensure the public could hold the government accountable for any
corruption, mal-administration or poor governance, most of these founding fathers did not trust
political power in the hands of the citizenry. With threat of social unrest hanging over their
heads in the form of Shays Rebellion, the framers only allowed one house of the bicameral

Poli Sci 1, Hernandez, ELAC

June 2013

Political Science Supplement

Page 7 of 20

legislature to be elected directly by the people. To limit the influence of public passions on
decision-making, voters were not allowed to directly select the Senate and president. The
framers might turn over in their graves if they could witness the effort our representatives spend
on fundraising and political posturing due to the influence of direct elections.
Libertarianism focuses on individual liberty as essential to democracy, and places a premium on
protecting that liberty. Libertarianism advocates maximizing self-rule by limiting government's
power to interfere with liberty while still ensuring that government can protect liberties, like
personal and economic freedom. Some libertarians are mostly concerned with civil and political
liberty. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) undertakes controversial lawsuits to protect
the freedom of speech or other civil liberties. Civil libertarians are passionate about preventing
government restrictions on the Internet. If libertarianism only concerned with civil and political
liberty, then it would be similar to pluralism, direct democracy or anarchy in promoting the broad
dispersal of power. Other libertarians, such as the Libertarian Party, advocate a strong military, no
government assistance of any kind, no income taxes, and no government interference in the
economy. Libertarianism has the potential to be quite authoritarian in the defense of economic
liberty, leading to a greater concentration of economic and political power for wealthy elites.
Authoritarian Ideologies
Authoritarianism can be defined as the promotion of government with absolute power to rule
society, i.e. power that is not limited by popular consent or constitutional constraints. Indeed,
authoritarianism tends to exist when there is a passive and obedient public. Typically, it involves
a concentration of political power in the hands of a few interests. Autocracy, despotism and
dictatorship refer to regimes governed by a single authoritarian ruler. One example is a monarchy.
Government controlled by an elite few may take the form of an oligarchy, theocracy (as in
religious fundamentalism), aristocracy or military dictatorship. Although authoritarianism
opposes rule by the people, it may emerge as a large group, even a majority, dominating the rest of
society. One reason that the framers of the constitution were afraid of pubic opinion is they were
concerned about majoritarianism, authoritarianism by the majority. Some obvious examples in
Americas history include the Salem Witch trials, the persistence of slavery and discrimination,
the concentration of Japanese-Americans in internment camps, and McCarthyism.
Be careful not to use the word communism as a substitute for the word authoritarianism. The term
communism is sometimes confused with Communism with a capital C, i.e. the doctrine of a
Community Party regime. However, the communism originally referred to communal-based
economies or political systems, which we would describe as direct democracy. Certainly, rule by
a one-party state, like a Community Party regime, may be authoritarian. Indeed, some Communist
Party revolutionaries, such as Leninist or Maoist, have advocated rule by a vanguard of party
elites. Nevertheless, regimes that deprive people of freedom are authoritarian.
Totalitarianism is an extreme form of authoritarianism and involves the greatest concentration
of power. Totalitarian rulers have complete control of political authority and use it to manage
government, the economy and society. It usually involves the absence of civil rights or liberties
and requires active demonstrations of support for the ideology and/or supreme leader. Two
obvious examples include Germany under the leadership of Hitlers Nazi Party and the Soviet

Poli Sci 1, Hernandez, ELAC

June 2013

Political Science Supplement

Page 8 of 20

Union when the Communist Party was under Stalins control. The former Taliban regime of
Afghanistan imposed religious totalitarianism, particularly in its repression of women.
ECONOMIC IDEOLOGIES & SYSTEMS
There have been a variety of economic systems in the history of humankind. But no two
economic ideologies have more relevance today than capitalism and socialism. Like most liberal
democracies, the United States has a mixed economy. The American economy is mostly
capitalist, with some elements of socialism.
Capitalism is an economic ideology that advocates private property, free markets, profit,
competition and minimal or no government regulation. Private property means the ownership of
an economys capacity to produce the goods and services needed by society is under the control
of private individuals and private corporations. The theory of private property is that the
economy works best when entrepreneurs are free from regulation, taxation and other government
restrictions. Pure capitalism, also called laissez-faire capitalism, has full freedom from
government interference. Laissez-faire capitalism relies solely upon free markets. By free
markets, we mean the free exchange of goods and services supplied by producers in response to
consumer demand without interference from government or other barriers such as monopolies.
A central tenet of this system of free enterprise is that it maximizes efficiency by inducing
competition amongst producers in their quest for profit. Profit is the driving force of capitalism.
Under capitalism, there exist cyclical periods of economic growth and downturns sometimes
called boom and bust. The greatest bust in U.S. history was the Great Depression, which
occurred in the 1930's. Government regulation and social spending under the New Deal program
used elements of socialism to soften the effects of that depressions and future recessions.
Socialism is an economic ideology that advocates public ownership of property as well as
government regulation of supply and demand for ensuring a desirable quality of life for all
people. Socialism may lead to calls for radical political change along the lines advocated by the
most influential socialist, Karl Marx. Marxism criticized capitalism for exploiting workers,
advocated social and economic revolution, prescribed public ownership of property, sought an
equitable distribution of income, proposed replacing the profit motive and competition with
social cooperation and responsibility, and predicted the merging of all classes into one. The sort
of socialist revolution theorized by Karl Marx has not happened. Instead, socialism has existed
as either a command economy under an authoritarian Communist Party regime or as democratic
socialism. Under a command economy, the state dictates the conditions for supply and demand.
This was the path administered by the Communist party of the former Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics. By contrast, several European states today have what is called democratic
socialism which focuses on redistributing wealth more equitably. Democratic socialism
combines the goal of economic democracy with political democracy, usually in the form of
pluralism or populism.
SOCIAL IDEOLOGIES
Three sets of social ideologies underlie many cultural debates in American politics.: nationalism
and internationalism, elitism and egalitarianism, and individualism and communalism. What
follows is a brief description of these ideologies.

Poli Sci 1, Hernandez, ELAC

June 2013

Political Science Supplement

Page 9 of 20

Nationalism is a unifying social ideology that inspires group loyalty and collective identity.
Collective identity refers to an identity that is shared and felt by a group of people, like how
many Americans felt towards each other after the Attack of September 11th. Nationalism usually
involves a shared culture, ethnicity, religion, language, territory, and history. It has been a
powerful, liberating ideology in the struggle for political independence. In the 20th century,
nationalism motivated popular revolutions in many countries. It also explains why so many
Iraqis have violently opposed the United States military occupation.
Nationalism derives its meaning from the term nation. Technically, a nation is not a country or a
state. A country is a geographic territory governed by a state. A state is a political system that
governs a particular country as the sovereign power. A nation is a group of people with a
common sense of their collective identity and a desire for sovereignty, usually over a particular
geographic area. To be sovereign is to have no higher ruler but oneself, and that is the desire of all
nations. By definition, nationalists want an independent government for their people and a nation
has its own state or wants to have one. We live in an era when most sovereign governments are
nation-states. Nation-state refers to a government that is sovereign on behalf of people who share
a single national identity and, typically, controls some specific territorial boundaries, i.e., a
country. The goal of a sovereign government distinguishes nationalism from other forms of
collective identity, such as religious, ethnic or racial pride.
During the 1960 and 1970's, Black Nationalism and Chicano Nationalism promoted empowerment
as the means for overcoming discrimination. Some white persons who felt threatened by civil
rights gains joined the growing ranks of white nationalist movements in the 1980's, such as "Aryan
Nations." Sometimes nationalism has resulted in the oppression of individuals to enforce national
or cultural group solidarity, the exclusion and discrimination of outsiders, and many conflicts
between different nations. It has also been responsible for encouraging ethnocentrism, when
people glorify their role and importance of their culture group in contrast to others. An
unfortunate example of ethnocentrism in the United States has been some Americans devaluing
other cultural perspectives and dismissing criticism of America from people in other countries.
An ideology that seeks to transcend national boundaries is internationalism. Most forms of
internationalism recognize nation-states but challenge their claims to full sovereignty. The
traditional form of internationalism is humanism or humanitarianism. Humanists view people
as primarily all members of the same human species. Humanitarians such as the United Nations,
Green Peace, human rights activists and international relief agencies demonstrate this view by
what they do. They practice an internationalism that cherishes humanity as a collective identity.
Humanitarianism often coexists with people who have national or global interests. For instance,
many Americans who consider themselves patriotic will still donate food, clothes or money to
help famine victims or refugees in other countries. Historically, most American
environmentalists have adopted a humanist perspective, arguing that by protecting all of the
worlds life forms we preserve our humanity. The American labor movement has moved toward
a humanist internationalism by pressing the U.S. government to trade only with nations that
ensure their workers have the right to organize a union.

Poli Sci 1, Hernandez, ELAC

June 2013

Political Science Supplement

Page 10 of 20

Both nationalism and humanitarianism have been challenged by another internationalism, i.e.
globalization. Globalization refers to the rise of transnational corporations and global
capitalism. Politically, it promotes the notion that national governments must not intervene in
the global marketplace. Socially, globalization seeks to counteract government policies
proposed by many collective identity movements, nationalist or humanist. In recent years,
globalization has successfully removed restrictions on trade that were designed to protect
national industries, prevent destruction of the environment, or penalize violations of international
human rights law. Evidence of this trend can be found in the emergence of new regional
institutions, such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the European
Union (EU), and global institutions, e.g., the WTO, the World Bank and the International
Monetary Fund.
The debate over nationalism versus internationalism can be quite controversial and complex.
Humanitarians are often in conflict with cultural practices of some nations. For example, human
rights activists want international actions to be taken against developing nations (formerly called
Third World nations) that allow husbands to rape their wives or that deny women the right to
own property. These same developing nations criticize human rights activists for imposing
Western liberal values. Nationalists in these countries also criticize developed nations like the
United States for not opening their markets to free trade quickly enough. Many nationalists in
developed countries also oppose free trade but for different reasons. Some American nationalists
want to use trade restrictions to protect American industries that may not be able to compete
against the cheap labor available in other countries. Meanwhile, in December 1999,
humanitarians clashed with proponents of globalization on the issue of free trade at the meeting
of the WTO in Seattle. Humanitarians advocate restricting trade from nations that damage the
environment, deny workers rights, or harm human rights.
The complexity of the nationalism versus internationalism debate serves as analogy for other
ideological questions such as how best to organize a culturally diverse society.
Multiculturalism refers to a variety of ideologies that value and encourage a diversity of
different cultures within one society or one world. Multiculturalism is sometimes promoted as a
plurality of nationalisms where each particular cultural group is respected. Each cultural
minority would have a voice in national government as well as rights of self-determination and
autonomy for their particular group. Consequently, multiculturalism in liberal-democratic
societies such as the United States are sometimes described as cultural pluralism In contrast to
this particularist view, the universalist perspective of multiculturalism criticizes claims for group
rights made by cultural minority groups as simply too divisive. The universalist approach seeks
to include individual members of cultural minority groups by giving them the same rights and
privileges universally given to all individuals, while denying claims for group rights. While
universalists claim to support humanitarianism by treating all individuals the same, particularists
argue universalists are promoting the nationalism of the dominant cultural group.
Elitism and egalitarianism are another set of social ideologies that are part of American culture.
Elitism is any system of ideas linked by the belief that some people are better than others and,
that based on their superiority, they have a legitimate claim to greater power, status, and other

Poli Sci 1, Hernandez, ELAC

June 2013

Political Science Supplement

Page 11 of 20

benefits. The superior people, or elites, may be members of a specific group, such as gender,
class, or race. They may claim superior intelligence, education, wealth, family lineage, etc.
Elitism has been a prevalent ideology in American politics since its inception. Some supporters
of the Federalist cause exhibited elitism when they argued that the best rulers would be persons
of wealth and of an appropriate family lineage. Later, Thomas Jefferson argued that the virtuous,
talented elite of society, the natural aristocracy, should run government based on merit. Many,
if not most, Americans share Thomas Jeffersons commitment to meritocracy, a system where
people advance based on their honor, skills, and achievements. Like all forms of elitism,
meritocracy views society as made up of un-equals, some better skilled than others.
Egalitarianism refers to an ideology with the central premise that all people are equal or should
be equal. Egalitarians believe that all citizens have the capacity to govern. Greek philosopher
Aristotle recognized this belief as a hallmark of democracy. He noted that since all citizens are
equally fit to govern in a democracy a lottery could be used to select who would fill public
office.
Feminism is an egalitarian ideology that promotes gender equality in all aspects of life, i.e.,
social, political and economic equality between men and women. Though some feminists argue
that institutions need to be made gender neutral, i.e., that men and women are treated the same,
other feminists counter that institutions can only achieve gender equality when gender is
consciously taken into account. Taking gender into account would mean changing institutional
practices in our society, political system and economy to advance long-neglected concerns of
women, such as education, reproductive rights, childcare, sexual harassment, pornography, etc.
Still, all feminists agree that more must be done to extend the equality women have in public life
to private life as well.
Government advances egalitarianism by either treating people the same, procedural equality, or
making sure all people have equal resources, substantive equality. Procedural egalitarianism
emphasizes equal opportunity. What matters most for procedural egalitarians is that everybody
operate under the same, impartial rules even if the outcome produces inequality by favoring
some over others. In contrast, substantive egalitarians want to ensure that society is organized so
that all citizens actually have equal resources and power. A society totally committed to
substantive egalitarianism would provide all its citizens with the resources necessary for
having equal influence over political decisions, and would require that the outcome of those
decisions advance social and economic equality. In the recent debate over Proposition 209,
opponents of affirmative action made arguments based on procedural equality while proponents
of affirmative action argued for substantive equality.
The final set of social ideologies is individualism and communalism. Individualism seeks to
advance the rights and interests of the individual over the collective good of society. According
to this ideology, the primary right and interest of the individual is liberty, i.e. the freedom to do
as one pleases without restraint by others. Most individualists believe that society is advanced
only when each individuals liberty is protected and that it is harmed when any individuals
liberty is threatened. Individualists do not necessarily advocate weak government. Indeed, many
individualists associate themselves with the political ideology of libertarianism, which advocates

Poli Sci 1, Hernandez, ELAC

June 2013

Political Science Supplement

Page 12 of 20

a government that is limited but strong enough to protect individual liberty. Perhaps, John Stuart
Mill expressed the ideology of individualism best in his essay On Liberty (1859). Mill put forth
the harm principle whereby (a) an individuals liberty should be protected so long as that
person does not harm others or interfere in there lives; but (b) if a person actually harms another
individual through the use of their liberty than government must restrict the offenders liberty.
By contrast, communalism or communitarianism defines an ideology that places the needs of
society over those of the individual. In the Republic, Plato (427-347 B.C.) put forth a
communalist position when he reasoned that no person is self-sufficient. He argued that
individuals have always existed in societies because they have to depend upon one another.
Since individuals could not survive without the benefit of society, they have an obligation to help
fulfill the needs of society before they can start doing as they please. Some communalists argue
that individuals will have more freedom under a cooperative society than under chaos. People
who are concerned about the decline of social order are communalists. Communalists promote
the power of society to protect and nurture its citizens, even at that expense of individuals.
Compared to other countries, the United States has a stronger commitment to individualism than
communalism. American individualism is evident in the value placed upon personal privacy,
i.e., the individualistic belief that the public should not regulate what we do in private. The
importance of respecting personal privacy seemed to override concerns about social appearances
in the public support President Clinton received even after the revelations of his affair with intern
Monica Lewinsky. Individualism is also apparent in the belief shared by many Americans that a
young adult should do what it takes to successfully pursue of a career and not be held back by
family or community ties.
Nevertheless, communalism also has a long history in America, as documented by Alexis de
Tocqueville in Democracy in America (1848). Today, communalism is apparent in public
attitudes toward criminal justice. Public opinion polls found that many Americans are willing to
sacrifice constitutional liberties, such as the protection from unreasonable search and seizure, for
the goal of homeland security. Furthermore, communalism may lead to socialism on the left or
fascism on the right. Many communalists are motivated by religious fundamentalism.
Ironically, from the perspective of a Christian fundamentalist or Osama bin Laden, it is logical
that society should impose morality on all individuals if that is what God dictates.
IDEOLOGIES IN AMERICAN POLITICAL CULTURE: LIBERALISM & CONSERVATISM
Although policies of the United States government can be analyzed based on political, economic
or social ideologies, only two ideologies are commonly discussed: liberalism or conservatism.
Both ideologies take a certain position regarding political change. For instance, liberalism seeks
progressive change. Progressive change involves policy reforms that promote social justice and
equality while loosening restrictions on civil liberties. This is associated with individualism and
libertarianism on most civil liberties, egalitarianism and communalism on civil rights, and
commitments to humanitarianism and substantive egalitarianism regarding economic policies.
Consequently, the policies of progressive change tend to be advocated by a socialist leaning
populism, pluralism or republicanism. At their core, liberals believe social, political and economic
improvements can and should be made to ensure each person can fulfill their own potential.

Poli Sci 1, Hernandez, ELAC

June 2013

Political Science Supplement

Page 13 of 20

Conservatism seeks to maintain the status quo or promote regressive change. Regressive
change means abandoning the use of government for the purpose of redistributing wealth and
achieving social justice, and while strengthening the moral and religious order in society. This
may involve a religiously inspired populism and communalism. Conservatives may advocate
less civil rights policies in the interest of individualism and procedural egalitarianism. They will
advocate nationalism or communalism when restricting civil liberties in the interest of national
security or law and order. On economic issues, it promotes republicanism or libertarianism in
support of laissez-faire capitalism and globalization or nationalism. The core premise of
conservatism today is that naive liberals have promoted an expansion of government programs or
regulations that harm individual initiative and have loosened civil liberties to point of weakening
social and moral order.
Policy Issue

Liberal Position

Conservative Position

Amnesty for undocumented immigrants

supported by humanitarians

opposed by nationalists

Expansion of Free trade

opposed by humanitarians & nationalists

supported by globalization

Affirmative action programs

supported by substantive egalitarians

opposed by procedural egalitarians

Opening an adult bookstore

supported by individualists

opposed by communalists

Workplace drug testing

opposed by individualists

supported by communalists

Laws prohibiting sexual harassment

supported by communalists

opposed by individualists

Most spending goes to social welfare

supported by populists

opposed by libertarians

Most spending goes to military spending

opposed by humanitarians

supported by libertarianism

More opportunities for citizen participation

supported by populists and pluralists

opposed by republicanism

Progressive income tax (tax rich more)

supported by socialists

opposed by capitalists

Cut taxes on corporations

opposed by socialists

supported by capitalists

Part 3 - Political Theory

It is no accident that liberal or conservative are the ideologies more often used instead of the
aforementioned political, economic or social ideologies. Todays notion of liberalism and
conservatism are the product of vast changes that can be identified in the history of political
theory. Even the structure of government in the United States descends from a long line of
philosophical and social movements. The dominant philosophical influence on American
politics has come from Western (United States and European) political theory. (Sadly, academia
is only beginning to uncover the long neglected ideas of women and non-Western theorists.)
Certain key concepts in the history of Western political theory laid the groundwork for the
development of liberalism and conservatism in American politics.

Poli Sci 1, Hernandez, ELAC

June 2013

Political Science Supplement

Page 14 of 20

ANCIENT THEORIES
Three philosophical sources from the ancient period were Plato, Aristotle and Roman law.
Greek philosopher Plato established the foundation for Western philosophy in part because he
stressed the importance of reason for human nature and political society. Platos writings consist
of dialogues where his mentor Socrates challenged prevailing opinions in pursuit of the truth, a
practice that led to Socrates execution. Like Socrates, Plato viewed reason as the philosophical
skill for knowing abstract truths about the Good. For Plato, true reality consisted of abstract
ideals while the concrete things in everyday life were merely opinions, only slightly closer to the
truth than illusions. By the Good, Plato meant the highest aim that all forms of knowledge excel
to. The Good is so perfect that only a few, namely philosophers, might come to know it. Reason
guides their spiritual inclination toward courage, while their passionate element is restrained by
both reason and courage. This same sort of harmony in the philosophers soul is what Plato
prescribed for society, with reason as the guide and philosophers as the kings. Plato prescribed
an education system for identifying the potential of each man and women for serving as
philosophers, guardians or artisans. His emphasis on education as well as his philosophy greatly
influenced the Enlightenment.
Another Greek philosopher, Aristotle, found greater truth in the practical wisdom used for
solving problems in everyday life than in Platos reason for understanding abstract knowledge.
Aristotle described reason as a process for understanding natural justice, i.e., the principles of
justice that are derived from nature. Apart from reason, Aristotle explained that with practical
wisdom citizens could administer political justice in the interest of the entire community.
Aristotle viewed people as political animals and citizenship, participation in ruling, as the
highest vocation that one could hope to excel to and achieve spiritual happiness. In analyzing
the Greek city-states, Aristotle called the democratic citizen one who rules and is ruled in turn.
Participation in politics is the hallmark of democratic citizenship in Aristotles thought.
Aristotle's ethical view of citizenship was evident in the 'civic republicanism' of early Americans.
After the Romans conquered the Greeks and expanded their empire, they also implemented legal
theory to incorporate three kinds of law: natural, Roman, and local. The Roman concept of
natural law, the notion that there is a right way of doing things built into nature, actually derives
from the Greeks, such as Plato and Aristotle. Roman law consisted of rules laid down by the
sovereign empire and all persons within the empire were subject to it. Some subjects possessed
legal citizenship, special rights and privileges granted by a sovereign state, that were not
necessarily tied to political participation. You will notice that this idea of legal citizenship is
closer to how Americans think of citizenship today than Aristotles idea of the democratic
citizen. Finally, local authorities were allowed to make positive law, i.e., the passing of
legislation for addressing a specific problem or circumstance, so long as it did not interfere with
the universal jurisdiction of the Roman law.
FEUDALISM
Following the fall of the Roman Empire, the European societies regressed technologically and
institutionally. Consequently, there was a decline in the importance of reason for organizing
political society, whether Platos abstract reason or Aristotles practical wisdom. With the

Poli Sci 1, Hernandez, ELAC

June 2013

Political Science Supplement

Page 15 of 20

general decline of social, political and economic institutions, individual warriors held the only
real power. It was in the personal arrangements between warriors and landholders that
feudalism was born. The lords, or the landowners, contracted with vassals, i.e., warriors, for
defense of their estate or territory. In return for the vassals loyalty and allegiance, the lord
would pay the vassal a fee, often in the form of a portion of their estate. Overtime, a complex
system of lords and vassals emerged as lords would take over other lords and vassals would hire
vassals of their own.
Under mature feudalism, the monarch (to whom all would pledge allegiance), the clergy, and the
lords and vassals held power, in that order. This power was based upon both personal and
structural resources. All three classes and the underclass of workers bound to the land, the serfs,
could depend upon heredity to determine their station in life. Virtually no social mobility
existed. Also, personal honor was a currency that one gave to maintain ones relationship within
the feudal hierarchy. Personal commitment to the hierarchy was required; there was no room for
voluntary action. So, in addition to heredity and honor, hierarchy was another key feature. It
was the higher classes that had the authority to resolve disputes by sitting as judges to make
common law, i.e., law based on custom as determined by judges and continued as precedent in
subsequent courts. It is no wonder that the work relationship of the serf to the lord was that of
servant to master, respectively. Finally, religious order served to reinforce the hierarchy. In the
latter half of feudalism, when the monarch came to rely less upon the lords and vassals, the
clergy argued there existed a divine right of kings, i.e., a god given right to be the absolute
ruler.
While there are many explanations for the fall of feudalism, such as the reliance upon
professional armies, the following have direct bearing on the change toward classical liberalism.
With the Magna Carta in 1215, the English parliament set regulations upon the fees of the lords
and vassals, in effect challenging the absolute power of the monarch. In the 13th century, St.
Thomas Aquinas recovered the writings of Aristotle and offered a Christian/Roman
reinterpretation. Consistent with the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, Aquinas
considered God to be the source of eternal law, which could not be known directly. Eternal law
was partly communicated through divine law (the word of God) in the form of the scriptures, Old
Testament and New Testament, and was revealed solely to the clergy. Eternal law was also
evident in nature, where it took the form of natural law (God in the world) and could be
understood through the reason. Positive law was only a subset of natural and divine law.
Reasons re-emergence as a means for understanding how to organize our lives was crucial to the
weakening of feudalism and the development of liberalism. On the religious front, the idea that
any human with the capacity for reason could have direct access to understanding God was
revolutionary. Luther and the Protestant Reformation eventually put forth the notion of personal
revelation and salvation. As for understanding nature through reason, the seeds for modern
science developed. Early scholars like Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo raised challenges to
church doctrine through inductive reasoning, meaning they demonstrated alternative truths about
nature with empirical evidence. The revolution in science and the newfound freedom of
religious practice set the basis for the enlightenment.

Poli Sci 1, Hernandez, ELAC

June 2013

Political Science Supplement

Page 16 of 20

Perhaps the greatest undoing for feudalism was economic. In the market cities or burgers, a new
entrepreneurial class emerged. As their own independent source of wealth gave them a basis for
power outside of the feudal order, these merchant capitalists became less willing to pay taxes to,
and follow the dictates of, the monarch.
CLASSICAL LIBERALISM: THE START OF LIBERAL DEMOCRACY
By the 17th and 18th century, feudalism was being challenged by a revolutionary ideology that
was later called liberalism. To distinguish this particular form of liberalism from later versions, I
will refer to it as classical liberalism. Classical liberalism is the product of the historical period
known as the Enlightenment. The Enlightenment promoted science, philosophy and reason as a
means for solving social problems and improving human civilization. Classical liberalism
includes the two Enlightenment principles of rationalism and human perfectability. Rationalism
refers to the use of human reasoning to understand nature and solve problems in the world.
Human perfectability is the idea that humans have the natural capacity to improve themselves
individually and as a society. Rationalism and human perfectability suggests that the unequal
feudal order based on personal politics could and should be replaced by a society based on
proceduralism. Proceduralism refers to organizing and improving society with impartial rules.
Based in part on the principles of rationalism and human perfectability, classical liberalism
advanced the notion that government needed to be held accountable for the protection of
individual liberty. In the mid-17th century, Thomas Hobbes contributed to this idea when he
proposed a social contract. Hobbes felt that men in their natural state are harmful to each other,
man is a wolf to man, which is why men agree to a social contract with the monarch. As long
as the monarch guarantees order and the protection of certain liberties, the people are obligated
to provide their allegiance to the state.
By 1690, John Locke articulated an alternative vision of the relations of the people with the state.
Locke believed that in the state of nature men were endowed with reason by God and were given
free rein to make productive use of nature, including their bodily nature, for the purposes of selfpreservation. He presented a vision of individualism and egalitarianism that held all men are
endowed with natural rights to life, liberty and property. Men could claim ownership of things
in the form of private property because they had ownership over their bodies, which produced
things through their labor. Since there was no government, under natural law each man was
justified in murdering or enslaving those who violated their natural rights. Locke reasoned that
when men left the state of nature, they gave up being individuals and formed a civil society.
Civil society refers to the life within social institutions, as opposed to political or economic
institutions.
John Lockes assertions about nature underlie his political ideas. Once social ties are formed,
men view themselves as a political community and exercise popular sovereignty by creating
government. Locke reasoned that men would no longer be able to take matters into their own
hands because the purpose of government is protect each persons natural rights and
provide for the common good. Government authority derives from popular consent, which is
evident in the willingness of the people to support the system. Given the fundamental rationality
of man, Locke argues for constitutionalism, i.e., limited government restrained by the rule of

Poli Sci 1, Hernandez, ELAC

June 2013

Political Science Supplement

Page 17 of 20

law. While advocating a separation of powers, Locke presents the legislature as the most
important branch of government since it governs by deliberation, a form of collective reason.
Finally, Locke believed it was essential that citizens retain the right to dissent since he believed
most people would be reluctant to change government, even a corrupt one. In fact, he made his
political argument anonymously while he was the target of persecution as one of the Dissenters
of the British king during his time. About one hundred years later, his ideas influenced the
American Declaration of Independence and protections in the US Constitution: two historical
documents that were the result of revolution against the British monarchy.
About the same time of the founding of the United States, the French were revolting from rule by
aristocracy. Thinkers like Jean-Jacques Rousseau in France (and others in England) complained
that there was too much inequality, which served to corrupt the wealthy and powerful. Like the
classical liberals, Rousseau argued for an ideal society governed by a social contract. Rousseau
did not propose a limited government or constitutionalism like Locke. Instead, Rousseau
advocated education and civic religion so that citizens would form a 'general will' of what the
people wanted. Though Rousseau was primarily a democratic thinker, his views influenced the
civic republicans in the United States and consequently Americas classical liberalism. He called
for a form of politics guided by citizens with public virtue instead of private interest.
Also, at the end of the 18th century, political economists like Adam Smith were giving more
explanation to Lockes philosophical view of private property. Smith and other political
economists articulated the economic arguments of classical liberals. Smith argued that economic
self-interest would provide for the most efficient means for building up the Wealth of Nations.
He reasoned that the invisible hand of supply and demand guided the free markets of capitalism.
Indeed, classical liberals favored free trade. But the economic liberty of private property
promoted by classical liberals like Locke and Smith also led to a growing gap between the haves
and have nots. In fact, the French Revolution quickly turned violent; it was a short-lived
democracy, which turned to mob rule. Even in the United States, there were signs of economic
upheaval, such as Shays rebellion, at the time the Constitution was drafted.
CHALLENGES TO CLASSICAL LIBERALISM: EVOLUTION OF LIBERAL
DEMOCRACY
We see evidence of classical liberalism today when we recognize the continuing influence of the
principles of the Enlightenment, the idea of natural rights, the notion of constitutionalism and the
reality of capitalism. However, there have been significant challenges to classical liberalism.
Gradually, these challenges served to promote greater democracy and equality than Classical
Liberalism promoted. Today, we could call United States a liberal democracy. The evolution
of liberal democracy is described in this review of some challenges to classical liberalism.
Early on, conservatives, whom I will call classical conservatives, referred to the French
Revolution as an example of the problems created by the liberals. Like classical liberals,
classical conservatives favored private property. Unlike classical liberals, they favored tradition
and honor over rationalism. Classical conservatives are known for promoting organicism, the
belief that society is a unified whole, like a living organism, rather than a collection of
individuals. They were concerned with maintaining the social fabric and providing a special role

Poli Sci 1, Hernandez, ELAC

June 2013

Political Science Supplement

Page 18 of 20

for the aristocracy. As classical liberalism gained ground in the 19th century, the influence of
classical conservatives lessened. The main way that classical liberalism expanded during this
period was by expanding the right to vote to men who did not own property.
Feminism was another challenge for classical liberalism. Indeed, feminists were early critics of
a specific hypocrisy of classical liberals. Though Locke found all men were created equal,
women were excluded from public life and relegated to marriages where they had no rights at all.
In 1706, Mary Astell challenged the ideas of Locke and his fellow Dissenters when she asked If
all men are born free, how is it that all Women are born slaves? A Royalist, Astell foresaw that
liberal democracy would expand coverture, i.e. laws were husbands covered their wives.
In the 1790's, Mary Wollstonecraft reasoned that the advancement of human beings required that
both women and men be active and virtuous citizens. Wollstonecraft argued that citizens can be
virtuous in public only if they are virtuous in their private life as well. Yet, classical liberalism,
like Aristotle before, did not only exclude women from citizenship. Classical liberalism also
created a break between a citizens public life, where equality was preached, and their private
life, where inequality was condoned. Wollstonecraft and subsequent feminists drew attention to
this public-private dichotomy in classical liberalism. Today, private life still lacks the level of
virtue for both men and women that Wollstonecraft had called for. Nevertheless, feminism has
changed liberal democracies. Women now have more procedural equality in public life, such as
the right to vote, and face less oppression in private life. With the end of coverture, husbands
can be found guilty of rape.
Socialism also challenged classical liberalism for not providing for enough equality. Socialists
in the early 19th century, like Robert Owen and William Thompson, promoted cooperative
associations as models for socialism. The labor union movement also developed to counteract
the power of private property owners. But just as classical liberalism was revolutionary ideology
against feudalism, Marxism emerged as a revolutionary ideology opposed to classical
liberalism.
Unlike the classical liberals, Marx was concerned about tangible interests not just ideas. He
found that throughout history the haves exploited the have nots because it had been in their
economic interest as a class. According to Marxs critique, in capitalism exploitation occurs
through private property and surplus value. In the capitalist economy, capitalists own the
workers labor and the products of their labor as commodities. The right of private property
allows the capitalist to own the worker in way that is similar to slavery. Though the worker
creates the product, the owner pays the worker wages for their labor in an amount that is less
than value for the product that was created. Surplus value is the amount of value produced by
workers labor but not paid to the worker; surplus value is how profit is made.
product value (price) =

labor value (wages)

surplus value (profit)

According to Marx, capitalist exploitation leads to three forms of alienation. The worker is
alienated from what he or she produces because the capitalist who designs and owns it. In
addition, the worker is alienated from his/her self as a worker because he or she is also an object

Poli Sci 1, Hernandez, ELAC

June 2013

Political Science Supplement

Page 19 of 20

controlled by the owner. The worker is alienated from other human beings because as a worker
he or she is not able to realize his/her human nature. Marx believed that the true nature of human
beings to be free and creative producers was being denied by capitalism.
Marxism is a theory of historical materialism. His theory maintains that the driving force
behind history has been class struggle, and that eventually the class of have nots rise up and
become the haves. He described this process as operating dialectically. Dialectics views
change as resulting from the potential within a thing to be something other than what it is, like
the little chick within an egg. Just as a chick will break the egg in which it develops, Marx
reasoned that workers represented the potential downfall of capitalism. Marx predicted that
capitalist societies would undergo a series of crises, such as massive unemployment,
overproduction, and the development of working class consciousness, which would lead to a
socialist revolution. Under Marxs conception of socialism, government would take over public
ownership of the means of production and would force all people into the same economic class.
Theoretically, while capitalism could maximize productivity, socialism would achieve greater
efficiency and eventually lead to communism. Government would, then, diminish under
communism because there would be no ruling class.
In reality, there has not been a socialist revolution under advanced capitalism as Marx had
predicted. The lack of a socialist revolution in a developed country increasingly makes Marxs
ideas appear utopian, which is precisely how he criticized other socialists who followed Owen
and Thompsons approach. There has been Communist Party revolutions in developing nations
inspired partially by Marx but also by Lenin, Mao or other thinkers with authoritarian ideas.
While some European liberal democracies were greatly influenced by the democratic tendencies
in Marxism, all liberal democracies, including the United States, now include some form of
economic equality as a goal. Indeed, the America dream is that if you work hard, you are
entitled to some minimum standard of living. The presumption is that if this is not happening,
government should help make this a reality.
Fascism represented a reactionary challenge to classical liberalism, feminism, and socialism. In
the 1930's, fascism emerged as extreme form of nationalism and elitism. It was opposed to
intellectuals, rationalism, and liberalism in general. It promotes nationalism through militarism.
It promotes ethnocentrism, organicism, and restrictions on civil liberties in defense of the nationstate. Fascist governments operated through state corporatism, where government attempts to
organize all sectors of society. What fascism may be most remembered for is the 'cult of
personality' that develops around a leader, such as Hitler.
Today religious fundamentalists are sometimes called fascists. Certainly, the former rulers of
Afghanistan, the Taliban, exhibited characteristics of fascism. Moreover, since September 11th,
the fascist tendencies have been on the rise in American politics. Specifically, Bush's policies of
promoting American nationalism through increased militarism and restrictions on civil liberties
moves us in the direction of fascism. Just as many Afghans supported the religious fascism of
the Taliban so too have many Americans supported Bush's policies. There has only been a slight
return away from those policies under the Obama administration.

Poli Sci 1, Hernandez, ELAC

June 2013

Political Science Supplement

Page 20 of 20

LIBERAL DEMOCRACY TODAY: MODERN LIBERALISM AND CONSERVATISM

Liberal ideologies are identified with the left wing of an ideological spectrum while conservative
ideologies are associated with the right wing. The term left and right have their origins from the
French parliament during the 19th century. Socialists, reformers and others who sought
progressive change sat on the left. On the right would be classical conservatives and other
supporters of the status quo who wanted regressive change.
In United States, since the 1930's classical liberalism no longer existed as a single ideology. In
response to the challenges it faced and new complexity of modern society, classical liberalism
has split off into the two ideologies we know today as liberalism and conservatism. For now, I
will call these two ideologies modern liberalism and modern conservatism. Modern liberalism
promotes progressive change by using government to promote social justice and equality while
loosening government restrictions on civil liberties. By no longer using government for the
purposing of redistributing wealth and achieving social justice but strengthening its role in
enforcing moral and religious order in society, modern conservatism advocates maintaining the
status quo or regressive change.
Dating back to the 19th century, the word liberal has been associated with many reforms that
have promoted enhanced civil liberties and civil rights. Reform liberals have promoted greater
freedom and individualism through government action, such as anti-corruption and antidiscrimination laws. Starting in the 1930's, New Deal liberals promoted government policies
that regulate the economy to help the working class and spend money on programs for the poor.
In the 1960's, the anti-war, black power, brown power, feminist and socialist movements
constituted the New Left. Today, many descendants of the New Left will often referred to
themselves as simply progressives. Some liberals have rejected the traditional liberalism of the
New Deal and the radicalism of the 1960's New Left. These neo-liberals advocate making the
U.S. economy more competitive and more involved in the global economy by promoting free
trade and cutting back welfare spending and some government regulations. President Bill
Clinton was a leader of the neo-liberal movement, which he described as a 'third way' between
traditional liberals and conservatives. To some, neo-liberals sound a lot like conservatives.
Neo-conservatives, like neo-liberals, emerged as a reaction to the 1960's. But neo-conservatives
are more aggressive in their criticism of too much government. Under Presidents Ronald Reagan
and George W. Bush, neo-conservatives favor tax cuts and high deficits as a means to discourage
future generations from engaging in social spending. They are known for their opposition to
political correctness, and have promoted an expansion of U.S. military interventions. Laissezfaire conservatives seek a return to the classical liberal approach to capitalism, little or no
government regulation and deficits. Stemming from a lineage with classical conservatives and
fascists, organic conservatives emphasize the need to repair the social fabric, such as restricting
civil liberties in the interest of the common good. Often sharing allegiance with organic
conservatives, Christian fundamentalists make up the Christian Right. They vehemently
oppose a womans right to abortion and civil rights for homosexuals.