A2 edexcel - political ideologies - Unit 3 - 13th June

classical liberals surely reject equality of opportunity on the grounds that it could only be brought about by a state offering that opportunity. Surely modern liberals favour a meritocracy whilst classical liberals just favour equality before the law?

how can classical liberals therefore reconcile equality of opportunity with negative freedom? the quote about the drunk in the gutter would surely come from a modern liberal 'we've given him education, a safety net yet he's failed so he deserves to be there'.

Also, what is the liberal view on human nature? the texts i've read have claimed individuals are reason-guided creatures capable of enlightenment, yet at the same time they claim a state is necessary because in a state of nature there would be nothing but violence and chaos, reflecting true human nature. which is it?

'Distinguish between neo-conservatism and neo-liberalism' can anyone help construct a plan for this. Is 'neo' basically an updated version?
Also how could you argue whether an ideology is a single doctrine? help would be appreciated.

Neo-conservatism and Neo-Liberalism are just the new right.

And when arguing about is an ideology a single doctrine or not, nearly ever time there will be tensions, so just break it up into the individual strands and compare how they agree and how they don't.

Classical Liberals go for foundational, formal and opportunity. I.E Meritocracy. As Mill said 'an equal chance to use our unequal talents'. The whole point they want a state at all is so that it can regulate everyone's chance and so others don't trample on each others freedoms.

Modern Liberals go for some limited outcome as well to address the excesses of capitalism and say that any inequality should work to the benefit of the poorest(Rawls), i.e you need some sort of decent welfare system.

Can anyone give me a quick run down of the New Right? It's one of the areas that confuses me... particularly how the liberal new right can still be considered conservative

Classical liberals don't believe in equality of opportunity though; they don't agree that everyone has the right to the same level of education or development because that can't be incorporated into negative freedom.

Also, where would you draw the line between modern liberalism and social democracy? Both seem to subscribe to similiar policies and both use Rawls as justification.



This. I don't see how neoliberalism and neoconservatism contradict eachother so to speak when Thatcher and Reagan incorporated both of them into their ideologies. Neoconservatism refers to a strong state in social terms whilst neoliberals adhere to the market. They aren't mutually exclusive.

'Thus liberals subscribe to a belief in equality of opportunity. Each and every individual should have the same chance to rise or fall in society'

I still don't see how the liberal new right can be considered conservative though because they subscribe to atomism, individualism and radicalism

finally there's a thread about these topics! it seems that most people on TSR are doing the american politics modules. they sound so much more interesting ! ):
i'm quite confident i know my stuff for the exam... it's just timing... is anyone else worried about that?

Yeah i have that book too but sometimes i just think that the author hasn't got a clue what he's talking about and just throws terms around for the fun of it.

does anyone know the counter points for Conservatism is a philosophy of human imperfection?

I don't really think there are any... that's just the conservative view of human nature and if you don't believe that you aren't really conservative anymore. Even the liberal new right who take a slightly different view of human nature still say we are flawed.

The only counterpoints are by arguing that conservatism is either not a philosophy or ideology at all, just common sense, or that its only belief is in the pragmatic need to uphold the status of the ruling class