Edexcel A2 6GP03 June 2015 Topic B: Introducing Political Ideologies
Scroll to see replies
Original post by hellolollol
Economic Liberalism is basically the lassez-faire doctrine and also a theory of Adam Smith who was against mercantilism arguing that the economy works best when the market is left alone by government. Smith argued that the market works through the natural force of supply and demand. For example, producers of goods are unable to set the price of a commodity but can be set by the market with the number of goods for sale x number off consumers willing to buy = it's a self regulating mechanism and no guidance is needed. Thus, no need for state intervention. The specific term Smith used as 'the invisible hand'. This also gives individuals to use their money as they wish. So economic individualism = unrestrained pursuit of profit.
Social Liberalism ... Hm, I haven't actually ( I don't think) come across the term before but if I were to define it with what I know so far, I would probably think it has something to do with constitutionalism and the threat of majoritarianism that threatens individual liberty. So the Social Contract (minimal govt merely to protect the natural rights with legitimacy from below), decentralisation of power so the governments themselves do not become tyrannical and coercive. OR another way of looking at it could be from a modern liberal POV with welfare state and Green's positive freedom arguing that statism is necessary insofar as protecting people of any external constraints on their liberty and freedom.
(if i'm wrong pls correct me as it would be greatly appreciated)
Social Liberalism ... Hm, I haven't actually ( I don't think) come across the term before but if I were to define it with what I know so far, I would probably think it has something to do with constitutionalism and the threat of majoritarianism that threatens individual liberty. So the Social Contract (minimal govt merely to protect the natural rights with legitimacy from below), decentralisation of power so the governments themselves do not become tyrannical and coercive. OR another way of looking at it could be from a modern liberal POV with welfare state and Green's positive freedom arguing that statism is necessary insofar as protecting people of any external constraints on their liberty and freedom.
(if i'm wrong pls correct me as it would be greatly appreciated)
Ah I see, so Economic Liberalism is just Classic Liberal economics. Right, thanks for that!
Alex got your point corrected, Point 2 - Social Liberals - advocate welfare state, Green arguging positive freedom - statism nesscary to protect people - exteral constraints on liberty/freedom. That's the correct one.
Original post by The Marshall
Hmmm....
Welfare Socalism does entail more Modern Liberal Thinking though.
They could either be Social Liberals.
So if we had a look:
Modern Liberals
Classical Liberals
Neo Liberals
Social Liberals (if need be)
I find the Uiltiarians more tricky - what is the crux of their argument?
These four strands would be good to argue, and I agree, the libertanism is too internationalist.
Welfare Socalism does entail more Modern Liberal Thinking though.
They could either be Social Liberals.
So if we had a look:
Modern Liberals
Classical Liberals
Neo Liberals
Social Liberals (if need be)
I find the Uiltiarians more tricky - what is the crux of their argument?
These four strands would be good to argue, and I agree, the libertanism is too internationalist.
well,in the text book it has:
1.Early forms (e.g. post enlightenment)
2. Utalitarianism (e.g. Jeremy Benthan and the greatest good for the greatest number)
3. Classical liberalsm
4. contemporry neo-liberalism (variation on classical)
5. Social Darwinism ( variation on classical)
6. Liberarianism ( variatio on classical)
7. New liberalism (modern forms)
8. Welfare (social) liberalism ( modern form)
9. Contemporary liberalism (modern form)
so just find any similar values to argue it is a doctrine and and differences to argue it isn't
predictions anyone??
Another essay:
On what grounds have Conservatives supported tradition and continuity?
Tradition refers to ideas and practices/institutions that have stood the test of time. This helps to establish links with the past, and creates continuity between the past/present and the future. Different types of Conservatives have supported tradition and continuity and this will be examined.
Conservatives have supported tradition and continuity on the grounds that humans are imperfect by nature, self seeking, physically limited and have regarded human intellectually, rationality and ideology dangerous, and that is going against the tradition of society that has existed for thousands of years and has been brought upon. Burke argued that the French shouldn't have destroyed their society in the pursuit of ideological fanaticism. It is this view that Conservatives have adopted and supported tradition because it creates a sense of belonging in the individual towards society. If existing institutions, countries or states are to be overthrown, this only invites further chaos. For Conservatives, change is dangerous for it entails uncertainty and foreshadows trouble. Therefore Conservatives have supported tradition as it sticks to the tried and tested, and does not attempt to move beyond the realm of mortal thinking.
Traditional and One Nation Conservatives have supported tradition and continuity. Tradition is the religious belief in God, something that Traditional Conservatives believe in. Traditional institutions such as the House of Lords, and the Monarchy, the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge constitute natural law and have served the United Kingdom for hundreds of years since its beginning to check the Government’s power. It is the accumulated wisdom of the past that brings knowledge and experience to society. These institutions have been tried and tested through many times and should be preserved for the benefit of the living, dead, and the future generation to come. This helps to generate a sense of identity. Established customs/practices are vital for the functioning of society as they part of an organism. Conservatives recognise that humans only prefer what is familiar and reassuring. Tradition provides a feeling of rootedness and belonging. Such an emphasis on tradition meant that Traditional Conservatives venerated established institutions.
The Authoritarian Conservatives have strongly advocated tradition and continuity. The Russian Tsars for example, particularly Alexander the III and Nicholas II, ruled an autocratic state based on the ideology of ‘autocracy, orthodoxy and nationality’. They saw change and reform as sapping away the power of the autocratic regime and suppressed any thoughts of getting this through. This fits in with the One Nation and Traditional Conservative thinking that revolution or ideological abstract idea brings chaos and ruins the natural structure. Another example could be the fact that the Russian Tsars changed state education to teach young Russians about the glorious past of Russia, thus as a result, Russians were more than likely to feel strongly about Russia as they had been taught by tradition, and this had helped to create continuity in linking people to their past. In this sense, the Authoritarian Conservatives believe they know what is best for the people, and that linking people to their past is the best way of stopping Liberal or abstract theories that advocate revolution.
The Neo Liberals on the other hand, have a blend of radical and reactionary features when it comes to examining their view of tradition and continuity. The radicalisation is evidence in its efforts to dismantle government intervention in the market. Very traditional Conservatives would argue this was a step taken too far and that it was on experimental grounds, not on accumulated wisdom from the past. The Neo-Liberals were thus following on rational rather than tradition. One Nation Conservatives such as Macmillan were critical of Thatcher's privatisation policies, especially over the steel industry. Like their traditional counterparts, they too were critical of the ideology of the Neo Liberals of pushing back the state and allowing the market to function normally without state intervention, pointing out that the market had been functioning normally for thousands of years with Government intervention. Another concept Neo Liberals found sickening was the ideal that if religion was the opium of the masses; then the family was the pusher of it. They were against strict rigid regimes, and allowed for the individual to flourish in society. They dismissed tradition altogether, whereas One Nation, Traditional, and the Conservative New Right would disagree with their abandoning of tradition and continuity.
The Neo Conservatives however support tradition and continuity. They are more faithful to the traditional Conservative way of supporting tradition and continuity. They make an appeal to tradition to be once more reintroduced as they feel that the growth of the permissive society in a liberal capitalist democracy has undermined traditional family values; of morality, social values and the Christian faith. Indeed, the sprout of the ‘liberalised’ society has only led to further chaos in terms of crimes and disorder. They call for stricter tough laws, with a strong police force that keeps chaos at bay, and argue that people thirst for security; thus following the tradition of having a strong state with strong authority as many Conservatives would agree with. Therefore Neo Conservatives have advocated tradition and continuity to restore back the traditions of the past, and making sure that individuals in society are not disconnected from their past.
In conclusion, it is clear that there is strong support for tradition and continuity. The One Nation and Traditional Conservatives strongly argue this as they believe that tradition is there to keep the accumulated wisdom of the past, and thus distribute it around society. Institutions such as the Monarchy, House of Lords have served a vital function and thus they will continue to do so for the dead, the living, and the future unborn. Authoritarian Conservatives on their part, argue for that the state knows what is best for its citizens, and attempt to re establish people to their past through state education, thus following the sense of tradition and continuity. The Neo Liberals are reactionary and wish to remove the burden of tradition which they believe suppresses the individual from flourishing within society. However, the One Nation, Traditional, and Authoritarian Conservatives would argue strongly that the Neo Liberal belief is only grounded on abstract theory and is thus not a solid foundation as it doesn't have a solid foundation of knowledge.
On what grounds have Conservatives supported tradition and continuity?
Tradition refers to ideas and practices/institutions that have stood the test of time. This helps to establish links with the past, and creates continuity between the past/present and the future. Different types of Conservatives have supported tradition and continuity and this will be examined.
Conservatives have supported tradition and continuity on the grounds that humans are imperfect by nature, self seeking, physically limited and have regarded human intellectually, rationality and ideology dangerous, and that is going against the tradition of society that has existed for thousands of years and has been brought upon. Burke argued that the French shouldn't have destroyed their society in the pursuit of ideological fanaticism. It is this view that Conservatives have adopted and supported tradition because it creates a sense of belonging in the individual towards society. If existing institutions, countries or states are to be overthrown, this only invites further chaos. For Conservatives, change is dangerous for it entails uncertainty and foreshadows trouble. Therefore Conservatives have supported tradition as it sticks to the tried and tested, and does not attempt to move beyond the realm of mortal thinking.
Traditional and One Nation Conservatives have supported tradition and continuity. Tradition is the religious belief in God, something that Traditional Conservatives believe in. Traditional institutions such as the House of Lords, and the Monarchy, the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge constitute natural law and have served the United Kingdom for hundreds of years since its beginning to check the Government’s power. It is the accumulated wisdom of the past that brings knowledge and experience to society. These institutions have been tried and tested through many times and should be preserved for the benefit of the living, dead, and the future generation to come. This helps to generate a sense of identity. Established customs/practices are vital for the functioning of society as they part of an organism. Conservatives recognise that humans only prefer what is familiar and reassuring. Tradition provides a feeling of rootedness and belonging. Such an emphasis on tradition meant that Traditional Conservatives venerated established institutions.
The Authoritarian Conservatives have strongly advocated tradition and continuity. The Russian Tsars for example, particularly Alexander the III and Nicholas II, ruled an autocratic state based on the ideology of ‘autocracy, orthodoxy and nationality’. They saw change and reform as sapping away the power of the autocratic regime and suppressed any thoughts of getting this through. This fits in with the One Nation and Traditional Conservative thinking that revolution or ideological abstract idea brings chaos and ruins the natural structure. Another example could be the fact that the Russian Tsars changed state education to teach young Russians about the glorious past of Russia, thus as a result, Russians were more than likely to feel strongly about Russia as they had been taught by tradition, and this had helped to create continuity in linking people to their past. In this sense, the Authoritarian Conservatives believe they know what is best for the people, and that linking people to their past is the best way of stopping Liberal or abstract theories that advocate revolution.
The Neo Liberals on the other hand, have a blend of radical and reactionary features when it comes to examining their view of tradition and continuity. The radicalisation is evidence in its efforts to dismantle government intervention in the market. Very traditional Conservatives would argue this was a step taken too far and that it was on experimental grounds, not on accumulated wisdom from the past. The Neo-Liberals were thus following on rational rather than tradition. One Nation Conservatives such as Macmillan were critical of Thatcher's privatisation policies, especially over the steel industry. Like their traditional counterparts, they too were critical of the ideology of the Neo Liberals of pushing back the state and allowing the market to function normally without state intervention, pointing out that the market had been functioning normally for thousands of years with Government intervention. Another concept Neo Liberals found sickening was the ideal that if religion was the opium of the masses; then the family was the pusher of it. They were against strict rigid regimes, and allowed for the individual to flourish in society. They dismissed tradition altogether, whereas One Nation, Traditional, and the Conservative New Right would disagree with their abandoning of tradition and continuity.
The Neo Conservatives however support tradition and continuity. They are more faithful to the traditional Conservative way of supporting tradition and continuity. They make an appeal to tradition to be once more reintroduced as they feel that the growth of the permissive society in a liberal capitalist democracy has undermined traditional family values; of morality, social values and the Christian faith. Indeed, the sprout of the ‘liberalised’ society has only led to further chaos in terms of crimes and disorder. They call for stricter tough laws, with a strong police force that keeps chaos at bay, and argue that people thirst for security; thus following the tradition of having a strong state with strong authority as many Conservatives would agree with. Therefore Neo Conservatives have advocated tradition and continuity to restore back the traditions of the past, and making sure that individuals in society are not disconnected from their past.
In conclusion, it is clear that there is strong support for tradition and continuity. The One Nation and Traditional Conservatives strongly argue this as they believe that tradition is there to keep the accumulated wisdom of the past, and thus distribute it around society. Institutions such as the Monarchy, House of Lords have served a vital function and thus they will continue to do so for the dead, the living, and the future unborn. Authoritarian Conservatives on their part, argue for that the state knows what is best for its citizens, and attempt to re establish people to their past through state education, thus following the sense of tradition and continuity. The Neo Liberals are reactionary and wish to remove the burden of tradition which they believe suppresses the individual from flourishing within society. However, the One Nation, Traditional, and Authoritarian Conservatives would argue strongly that the Neo Liberal belief is only grounded on abstract theory and is thus not a solid foundation as it doesn't have a solid foundation of knowledge.
(edited 8 years ago)
Here is the question people were most dreading on, I agree its a difficult question, but I tried my best.
Conservatism merely reflects the interests of the privileged and prosperous? Discuss.
It is often argued that ‘Conservatism merely reflects the interests of the privileged and prosperous’. Whilst that is true, it can also be argued that Conservatives seek to protect the inheritance of property and tradition. There have been some instances in Conservative history where One Nation Conservative has occurred, where the interests of the less privileged have been protected. This is sometimes referred to as paternalistic, compassionate conservatism, or even Noblesse Oblige. Different types of Conservatives strongly differ on this argument.
One Nation Conservatives have been argued that they ‘reflect the interests of the privileged and the prosperous’ because they perpetuate a form of enhancement or self preservation, when advocating reform in order to prevent the possibility of social revolution. These reforms can be attacked as they offer no real solution to the plight of the working class or those in poverty. New Right Conservatives have also been associated with the interests of the privileged and prosperous in that free market economics legitimizes social inequalities that is provided by equality of opportunity through a meritocratic society, through tax cuts and deregulation. The gap between the rich and the poor as a result has increased and not narrowed down as originally perceived.Therefore it can be argued that the New Right, and the One Nation Conservatives to an extent are ‘merely reflecting the interests of the privileged and the prosperous’.
At the outset, the pessimistic Conservative view of human nature allows Conservatives to justify the defence of their privileges and prosperity. Conservatives often have viewed human nature as imperfect in three ways; one that they are morally imperfect, second that they are self seeking, dependent, and thirdly that they are psychologically limited. There is profound scepticism about the natural goodness of human nature. Humans have a sense of original sin. Conservatives believe that they have to safeguard their possessions and privileges against man who is inherently immoral. Marxists critique the view as an excuse to protect the bourgeois ideology and to protect the interests of the privileged and prosperous, and thus exploiting the proletariat through the means of production. Therefore Conservatism can be seen to defend the interests of the privileged and the prosperous.
The organic theory of the state can be seen as the Conservative justification for their belief in natural hierarchy and natural governors. This can be argued that this is an extension of protecting the interests of the privileged and the prosperous. The organic society theory of the states likens to society to a living organism where every component has an important role to play. The entire entity is more than the sum of its parts. And as such Society is necessary hierarchical and is more important than any other individual within it. Organic society thus leads Conservatives to believe in a natural hierarchy. For they do not perceive class conflict, only class. They argue that those less privileged are more than likely to be happy with their role as it provides them stability and helps to keep them connected to tradition, security and rootedness.
Conservatives would argue however that they do not ‘represent the interests of the privileged and the prosperous’ as they have adopted a pragmatic approach to dealing with problems in society. Conservatives would argue that they preserve what is best from the past, and accept a limited and controlled response to changing circumstances, i.e Disraeli’s reforms to extend the franchise to the working class and improve working conditions. Macmillan's mixed economy that was funded by taxation, and had nationalised industries such as steel which were profitable. These instances of One Nation thinking has led to the argument that they do not rely on strict deference, or rigid doctrinaire principles. They are pragmatic and intend to solve the serious problems of society. Instead they argue on a pragmatic basis, and intend to help those most vulnerable in society.
Conservatives fiercely reject the accusations that they are working in the ‘interests of the privileged and prosperous’. Supporters of One Nation Conservatism argue that it allows the interests of all groups in society, particularly the poor and less well off to be treated with care. It does this through emphasising paternalism and social identity; especially for the ‘privileged and prosperous’ to look after the less well off in society. The New Right Conservatives also agree that the less well off should be looked after in society, and that through a strict meritocracy, those less well off may be able to advance on the basis of their recruitment of skill and merit if they prove to have such particular skills. In this view free market economics provides opportunities not needed for the rich to get richer, but for the poor to become less poor, as everyone benefits from the vigour, and dynamism of the free market economy.
In conclusion, it is debatable whether Conservatism merely reflects the interests of the privileged and the prosperous. On the one hand, the Conservative justification for keeping the lower classes down in an organic society has been critiqued by Marxists who believe it is only an extension of the bourgeois acting in their interests, another viewpoint could be that the One Nation reforms are only meant to preserve the natural hierarchy that was advocated by Burke. However Conservatives have fiercely rejected this, arguing that through their reforms they have brought about real change, for example the extension of the franchise to the working class; no other Socialist or Liberal would have done such a thing. They have looked after the less well off through the privileged and the prosperous helping the poor. Therefore it is a very tricky debate that must be handled with care when examining this.
Conservatism merely reflects the interests of the privileged and prosperous? Discuss.
It is often argued that ‘Conservatism merely reflects the interests of the privileged and prosperous’. Whilst that is true, it can also be argued that Conservatives seek to protect the inheritance of property and tradition. There have been some instances in Conservative history where One Nation Conservative has occurred, where the interests of the less privileged have been protected. This is sometimes referred to as paternalistic, compassionate conservatism, or even Noblesse Oblige. Different types of Conservatives strongly differ on this argument.
One Nation Conservatives have been argued that they ‘reflect the interests of the privileged and the prosperous’ because they perpetuate a form of enhancement or self preservation, when advocating reform in order to prevent the possibility of social revolution. These reforms can be attacked as they offer no real solution to the plight of the working class or those in poverty. New Right Conservatives have also been associated with the interests of the privileged and prosperous in that free market economics legitimizes social inequalities that is provided by equality of opportunity through a meritocratic society, through tax cuts and deregulation. The gap between the rich and the poor as a result has increased and not narrowed down as originally perceived.Therefore it can be argued that the New Right, and the One Nation Conservatives to an extent are ‘merely reflecting the interests of the privileged and the prosperous’.
At the outset, the pessimistic Conservative view of human nature allows Conservatives to justify the defence of their privileges and prosperity. Conservatives often have viewed human nature as imperfect in three ways; one that they are morally imperfect, second that they are self seeking, dependent, and thirdly that they are psychologically limited. There is profound scepticism about the natural goodness of human nature. Humans have a sense of original sin. Conservatives believe that they have to safeguard their possessions and privileges against man who is inherently immoral. Marxists critique the view as an excuse to protect the bourgeois ideology and to protect the interests of the privileged and prosperous, and thus exploiting the proletariat through the means of production. Therefore Conservatism can be seen to defend the interests of the privileged and the prosperous.
The organic theory of the state can be seen as the Conservative justification for their belief in natural hierarchy and natural governors. This can be argued that this is an extension of protecting the interests of the privileged and the prosperous. The organic society theory of the states likens to society to a living organism where every component has an important role to play. The entire entity is more than the sum of its parts. And as such Society is necessary hierarchical and is more important than any other individual within it. Organic society thus leads Conservatives to believe in a natural hierarchy. For they do not perceive class conflict, only class. They argue that those less privileged are more than likely to be happy with their role as it provides them stability and helps to keep them connected to tradition, security and rootedness.
Conservatives would argue however that they do not ‘represent the interests of the privileged and the prosperous’ as they have adopted a pragmatic approach to dealing with problems in society. Conservatives would argue that they preserve what is best from the past, and accept a limited and controlled response to changing circumstances, i.e Disraeli’s reforms to extend the franchise to the working class and improve working conditions. Macmillan's mixed economy that was funded by taxation, and had nationalised industries such as steel which were profitable. These instances of One Nation thinking has led to the argument that they do not rely on strict deference, or rigid doctrinaire principles. They are pragmatic and intend to solve the serious problems of society. Instead they argue on a pragmatic basis, and intend to help those most vulnerable in society.
Conservatives fiercely reject the accusations that they are working in the ‘interests of the privileged and prosperous’. Supporters of One Nation Conservatism argue that it allows the interests of all groups in society, particularly the poor and less well off to be treated with care. It does this through emphasising paternalism and social identity; especially for the ‘privileged and prosperous’ to look after the less well off in society. The New Right Conservatives also agree that the less well off should be looked after in society, and that through a strict meritocracy, those less well off may be able to advance on the basis of their recruitment of skill and merit if they prove to have such particular skills. In this view free market economics provides opportunities not needed for the rich to get richer, but for the poor to become less poor, as everyone benefits from the vigour, and dynamism of the free market economy.
In conclusion, it is debatable whether Conservatism merely reflects the interests of the privileged and the prosperous. On the one hand, the Conservative justification for keeping the lower classes down in an organic society has been critiqued by Marxists who believe it is only an extension of the bourgeois acting in their interests, another viewpoint could be that the One Nation reforms are only meant to preserve the natural hierarchy that was advocated by Burke. However Conservatives have fiercely rejected this, arguing that through their reforms they have brought about real change, for example the extension of the franchise to the working class; no other Socialist or Liberal would have done such a thing. They have looked after the less well off through the privileged and the prosperous helping the poor. Therefore it is a very tricky debate that must be handled with care when examining this.
(edited 8 years ago)
Liberal Democracy is a contradiction in terms, Discuss.
Liberal Democracy is a political regime with combines a liberal preference for limited democracy, with a democratic preference for majority rule. The key features of a liberal democracy are regular free elections with democratic participation based upon universal adult suffrage. Liberals support significant constraints on Government power in the terms of a constitution, and consent for a government, through a vigorous society that is intolerable of everyone.
Liberal Democracy a contradiction in terms as Classical Liberals promote individualism. The idea that the individual is supreme, and doesn’t need to listen to any group, society or state. This undermines the idea that a democracy should rule by the consent of the ‘people’ will’. A democracy would not be needed and this is a key contradiction. Another contradiction is the fact that Classical Liberals advocate rationalism, the belief that knowledge flows from reasoned logic rather than tradition or faith. These contradictions suggest that the need for a democracy is not really necessary.
Liberal Democracy is a contradiction in terms as it tends to promote collectivism rather than individualism. The term being that individuals greater things together collectively rather than individually, for if they were to be individual, they become isolated and innate creatures. Liberals however are directly opposed to this, and argue that collectivism infringes rights on the individual, and argue that not every group can work collectively; there have always been disagreements within history. In addition, democracy implies De Tocqueville idea’s of ‘tyranny of the majority’. Where the majority may infringe on the rights of the minorities. Such an example can be taken of the 2009 Swiss referendum on the banning of constructing minarets. This could be seen as preventing liberties to be expanded, and the oppression of the muslim swiss minority. This doesn’t follow the liberals belief in the significant value that every individual is of equal worth.
Liberal Democracy is a contradiction in terms as it suggests equality over freedom. In addition, democracy suggests increasing state interference in political/economic affairs which infringes the individual’s rights to be free. Classical Liberals such as Locke defined the Government should act to only protect the three natural rights; life, liberty, property. Neo Liberals such as Hayek argued that the state musn’t interfere in the free market, that it should roll back the state’s interference, and let the economy function efficiently, thus releasing the dynamism of the market, and allowing the individual to be free and make his own decisions as he is the capable and rational consumer, thus rejecting Keynesian economics. Therefore the Government or the state is there to act as a night-watchman, to protect security, defend law and order, and protect private property. It is thus that Neo Liberals and Classical Liberals have advocated minimal state intervention as they fear that if it were to intervene, it infringes the individual’s right which is a contradiction in terms.
However, Liberal Democracy is not a contradiction in terms as both Classical and Modern Liberals advocate a state to a certain extent, in order to protect rationale and self minded individuals. Classical Liberals for instance, advocated an night watchman, to protect the three god given basic rights as defined by Locke; life, liberty and property. They accept that the state is a necessary evil, and Locke argues that the individual must be prepared to sacrifice some of his liberties to the state in order to receive the protection from the state firmly on those three basic rights only. Modern Liberals on the other hand, have advocated a state which intervenes through positive freedom; allowing the individual to fulfill his potential through self realization and self mastery. The state can be used to fulfill people’s lives through a welfare state which can help alleviate poverty. Thus to different extents, Liberals have supported state intervention one way or the other, and through Liberal Democracy, it is possible to put restraints to limit the Government’s power, through bicameralism, separation of powers, or a constitution.
Liberal Democracy is not a contradiction in terms as Modern Liberals support the separation of powers. Montesque advocated a separation of powers to make government more accountable to its citizens. This would be split between the executive, the judiciary that would keep the government’s power in check by preventing any laws passed by the legislation that infringed on the individual’s rights. The split between the executive, the judiciary and the legislation would ensure less corruption and less influence over each institution. The example of this has been adopted today in the US, with the congress, the presidency and the supreme court. Another example could be the UK, with the House of Lords, House of Commons, and the Supreme Court. This would ensure that the separation of powers made democracy and thus government more accountable to its citizens.
In addition, democracy can help individuals to promote civil liberties. Liberals also believe that people act as a limiting force on the government and that through the creation of a Liberal Democracy, a social contract is formed. The Social Contract is associated with an agreement with the individual and the government in a sense, resulting in authority from below and giving the government legitimacy to rule over the individual. This means that the government should act in the interests of the individual, it if it doesn’t and breaches that social contract; Locked advocated the right to overthrow the government should it have done so.
In conclusion Liberal Democracy may be seen as a contradiction in terms due to the Liberal belief in individualism, and rationalism, which suggests opposition to any form of centralised democracy. However, in reality Liberal Democracy not a contradiction in terms as it allows limits to be enforced onto government, and which helps Liberal Democracy to govern better as a result of allowing toleration of all individuals and pressure groups in society.
Liberal Democracy is a political regime with combines a liberal preference for limited democracy, with a democratic preference for majority rule. The key features of a liberal democracy are regular free elections with democratic participation based upon universal adult suffrage. Liberals support significant constraints on Government power in the terms of a constitution, and consent for a government, through a vigorous society that is intolerable of everyone.
Liberal Democracy a contradiction in terms as Classical Liberals promote individualism. The idea that the individual is supreme, and doesn’t need to listen to any group, society or state. This undermines the idea that a democracy should rule by the consent of the ‘people’ will’. A democracy would not be needed and this is a key contradiction. Another contradiction is the fact that Classical Liberals advocate rationalism, the belief that knowledge flows from reasoned logic rather than tradition or faith. These contradictions suggest that the need for a democracy is not really necessary.
Liberal Democracy is a contradiction in terms as it tends to promote collectivism rather than individualism. The term being that individuals greater things together collectively rather than individually, for if they were to be individual, they become isolated and innate creatures. Liberals however are directly opposed to this, and argue that collectivism infringes rights on the individual, and argue that not every group can work collectively; there have always been disagreements within history. In addition, democracy implies De Tocqueville idea’s of ‘tyranny of the majority’. Where the majority may infringe on the rights of the minorities. Such an example can be taken of the 2009 Swiss referendum on the banning of constructing minarets. This could be seen as preventing liberties to be expanded, and the oppression of the muslim swiss minority. This doesn’t follow the liberals belief in the significant value that every individual is of equal worth.
Liberal Democracy is a contradiction in terms as it suggests equality over freedom. In addition, democracy suggests increasing state interference in political/economic affairs which infringes the individual’s rights to be free. Classical Liberals such as Locke defined the Government should act to only protect the three natural rights; life, liberty, property. Neo Liberals such as Hayek argued that the state musn’t interfere in the free market, that it should roll back the state’s interference, and let the economy function efficiently, thus releasing the dynamism of the market, and allowing the individual to be free and make his own decisions as he is the capable and rational consumer, thus rejecting Keynesian economics. Therefore the Government or the state is there to act as a night-watchman, to protect security, defend law and order, and protect private property. It is thus that Neo Liberals and Classical Liberals have advocated minimal state intervention as they fear that if it were to intervene, it infringes the individual’s right which is a contradiction in terms.
However, Liberal Democracy is not a contradiction in terms as both Classical and Modern Liberals advocate a state to a certain extent, in order to protect rationale and self minded individuals. Classical Liberals for instance, advocated an night watchman, to protect the three god given basic rights as defined by Locke; life, liberty and property. They accept that the state is a necessary evil, and Locke argues that the individual must be prepared to sacrifice some of his liberties to the state in order to receive the protection from the state firmly on those three basic rights only. Modern Liberals on the other hand, have advocated a state which intervenes through positive freedom; allowing the individual to fulfill his potential through self realization and self mastery. The state can be used to fulfill people’s lives through a welfare state which can help alleviate poverty. Thus to different extents, Liberals have supported state intervention one way or the other, and through Liberal Democracy, it is possible to put restraints to limit the Government’s power, through bicameralism, separation of powers, or a constitution.
Liberal Democracy is not a contradiction in terms as Modern Liberals support the separation of powers. Montesque advocated a separation of powers to make government more accountable to its citizens. This would be split between the executive, the judiciary that would keep the government’s power in check by preventing any laws passed by the legislation that infringed on the individual’s rights. The split between the executive, the judiciary and the legislation would ensure less corruption and less influence over each institution. The example of this has been adopted today in the US, with the congress, the presidency and the supreme court. Another example could be the UK, with the House of Lords, House of Commons, and the Supreme Court. This would ensure that the separation of powers made democracy and thus government more accountable to its citizens.
In addition, democracy can help individuals to promote civil liberties. Liberals also believe that people act as a limiting force on the government and that through the creation of a Liberal Democracy, a social contract is formed. The Social Contract is associated with an agreement with the individual and the government in a sense, resulting in authority from below and giving the government legitimacy to rule over the individual. This means that the government should act in the interests of the individual, it if it doesn’t and breaches that social contract; Locked advocated the right to overthrow the government should it have done so.
In conclusion Liberal Democracy may be seen as a contradiction in terms due to the Liberal belief in individualism, and rationalism, which suggests opposition to any form of centralised democracy. However, in reality Liberal Democracy not a contradiction in terms as it allows limits to be enforced onto government, and which helps Liberal Democracy to govern better as a result of allowing toleration of all individuals and pressure groups in society.
Good luck guys!
Distinguish between neoliberalism and neoconservatism?
Original post by lascivious
Distinguish between neoliberalism and neoconservatism?
In short;
Neoliberalism - puts an emphasis on minimal state. Which can be seen through Free market, Privatisation and its antiwelfarist veiws. They believe in egotistical individualism as humans are low maintenance and self seeking creatures. You owe society nothing and it owes you nothing in return. It comes from classical liberal veiws.
Neoconservatism - puts more emphasis on social order and social morality. Suggesting that there is a need for a big government to tackle human imperfections. This is achieve through hierarchy and leadership. They have a strong belief in the organic society. Comes from traditional conservatism.
Does anyone have an essay plan for liberalism as a single doctrine?
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
How amazing was that paper?! 
Original post by Skellywren
How amazing was that paper?!
Is it just me who founf it hard lol
Original post by johnd45
‘Liberalssupport equality, but only a qualified form of equality.’
any essay plans for this?
any essay plans for this?
You guys should've heeded to this lol
All the questions were repeats, I'd learnt the mark schemes so I was fine 
Original post by Skellywren
All the questions were repeats, I'd learnt the mark schemes so I was fine
Ahhh good for you. Not to sure how i did tbh
what 45 marker did you do?
Shout out to the guy who said 2 anarchism 15 marks will come up tho.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
That exam was one of the easiest papers they have done in my opinion. I only had to end up doing 2 idologies throughout the whole paper anarchism and liberalism, which were also the 2 easiest ideologies on the paper. I'm guessing higher grade boundaries though...
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
I did the liberalism one, the conservative one looked nice too but I didn't really feel as confident about it
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- A-level Exam Discussions 2024
- Edexcel A Level Politics Paper 1 (9PL0 01) - 21st May 2024 [Exam Chat]
- GCSE Exam Discussions 2024
- Edexcel A Level Politics Paper 3 (9PL0 3A/3B) - 14th June 2024 [Exam Chat]
- Edexcel A Level Politics Paper 2 (9PL0 02) - 5th June 2024 [Exam Chat]
- A Level Politics
- mental health
- Switching from A level to IAL
- A-level Politics Study Group 2023-2024
- Edexcel GCSE Geography B Paper 3 (1GB0 03) - 16th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- AQA A Level Sociology Paper 2 (7192/2) - 4th June 2024 [Exam Chat]
- Politics
- a level history - edexcel cold war coursework
- Edexcel GCSE Foundation tier Maths Paper 3 3F (1MA1) - 14th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- Edexcel A Level History Paper 3 (9HI0 30-39) - 11th June 2024 [Exam Chat]
- Edexcel A Level History Paper 2 (9HI0 2A-2H) - 7th June 2024 [Exam Chat]
- A-level Politics Study Group 2022-2023
- Edexcel GCSE HISTORY PAPER 2 (1HI0 2A-2W) - 4th JUNE [Exam Chat]
- Edexcel A Level History of Art Paper 2 (9HT0 02) - 3rd June 2024 [Exam Chat]
- Messed up CIE Math P3 and Physics P4.
Latest
Trending
Last reply 9 hours ago
Edexcel A Level Politics Paper 3 (9PL0 3A/3B) - 14th June 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 3 days ago
Edexcel A Level Politics Paper 2 (9PL0 02) - 5th June 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 3 days ago
How to go from an A grade essay to an A* essay in edexcel politics?Last reply 6 days ago
Edexcel A Level Politics Paper 3B (9PL0 3B) -16th June 2023 [Exam Chat]Last reply 1 month ago
AQA A Level Politics Paper 3 (7152/3) - 14th June 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 1 month ago
AQA A Level Politics Paper 2 (7152/2) - 5th June 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 1 month ago
AQA A Level Politics Paper 1 (7152/1) - 21st May 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 2 months ago
AQA A-Level Politics Paper 2 - 7152/2 7 June 2023 [Exam chat]Last reply 2 months ago
Edexcel A Level Politics Paper 2 (9PL0 02) 7th June 2023 [Exam Chat]Trending
Last reply 9 hours ago
Edexcel A Level Politics Paper 3 (9PL0 3A/3B) - 14th June 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 3 days ago
Edexcel A Level Politics Paper 2 (9PL0 02) - 5th June 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 3 days ago
How to go from an A grade essay to an A* essay in edexcel politics?Last reply 6 days ago
Edexcel A Level Politics Paper 3B (9PL0 3B) -16th June 2023 [Exam Chat]Last reply 1 month ago
AQA A Level Politics Paper 3 (7152/3) - 14th June 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 1 month ago
AQA A Level Politics Paper 2 (7152/2) - 5th June 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 1 month ago
AQA A Level Politics Paper 1 (7152/1) - 21st May 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 2 months ago
AQA A-Level Politics Paper 2 - 7152/2 7 June 2023 [Exam chat]Last reply 2 months ago
Edexcel A Level Politics Paper 2 (9PL0 02) 7th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
