Types of Government: A Republic or a Democracy?

Read this chapter through the "Other Forms of Government: Monarchy". When you finish, you should be
familiar with the concepts of direct democracy, initiatives, referenda, republics, and illiberal democracies.

In the United States, people often say “This is a democracy!” (which, apparently, justifies whatever
they happen to believe at the moment. The logic seems to be that although in a democracy, everybody
gets to vote, it’s my vote that counts). And we talk, in broad terms, about states that have open
elections as “democracies.”

Of course, that’s not exactly true.

4.1 Direct Democracy
PLEASE NOTE: This book is currently in draft form; material is not final.
LEA RN I N G OB J ECTI VES
In this section, you will learn:

1. What democracy means.

2. What the difference is between direct and indirect democracy.
3. Ways that direct democracy plays a role in contemporary government.

The precise definition of democracy is direct rule by the people. In a true democracy, the people
would vote directly on whatever comes before the state—laws, amendments, and decisions by
government. If your class votes for a take-home exam instead of an in-class test, that would be an
example of democracy. And anything that invites people to participate in decision-making in some
meaningful way, such as elections, can be said to be democratic. But that’s not the same thing as a
democracy. Why does this matter? First, words should have meaning, so that when we talk about
politics, for example, we’re all speaking the same language. When Americans call their government a
democracy, they are also implying that they are directly in control of government. It probably would
surprise many of them to learn that the Founding Fathers, about whom so many American citizens
like to wax nostalgic if not poetic, thought that ordinary citizens should have a definite but limited
role in directly controlling the government. Calling the government a democracy may also lead to
unrealistic expectations of how government works and how quickly it responds. In fact, most of the
modern “democracies” are designed to be a little bit slow and a little bit unresponsive. In this chapter,
we’ll see why.

The usual example of a true democracy is ancient Athens. The word democracy derives from Greek
roots, “demos” (people) and “kratis” (power). Athens, still the capital of modern Greece, was the
richest and most powerful of Greek citystates, at a time when Greece was divided into dozens of
competing tiny states. Athens had democratic elements in its government from about 500 BCE off
and on until the Romans effectively conquered Greece in the Second Century BCE. Other Greek city-
states had democratic governments, but Athens is the one about which we have the best information.

At its peak, ancient Athens had between 250,000 and 400,000 people (estimates vary), of whom as
many as two-thirds were slaves. Only free male citizens (who had completed military training) were
allowed to participate actively in politics, so that only about 20 percent of the male citizens could
actually vote. And, unlike a true democracy, they didn’t vote on everything; they elected councils
above them to handle some decisions. But big decisions, such as going to war, were made by the
assembly, a monthly gathering of eligible citizens. The assembly had a quorum (the minimum number
needed to be present for the decisions to count) of 6,000, making it one of the broadest-based
governing bodies in history.

This is what we now call direct democracy, in that the people, however defined, make government
decisions directly. Direct democracy has the virtue of including more people and giving them a voice,
and the people aren’t always wrong. Others have suggested that there’s a price in giving everybody a
voice. The challenge of direct democracy for Athens is the same challenge that direct democracy faces
today: Leaving decisions to people who may not be paying enough attention, and may get caught up in
the passion of the moment, can lead to bad decisions. For the Athenians, that meant throwing out
good leaders in favor of demagogues (candidates and leaders who say what people want to hear, as
opposed to, perhaps, what they need to hear), and entering wars that succeeded only in squandering
Athens’ blood and treasure. So, as with most ideas in politics, direct democracy involves trade-offs.
Contemporary Direct Democracy
Direct democracy is still with us today, nonetheless. In nearly 90 nations, and in the United States,
people do sometimes vote en masse on laws. In the U.S., 27 states have some form of initiatives and
referenda, which are tools of direct democracy.

Initiatives

Initiatives allow people to propose laws directly, either to the voters as a whole (direct initiative) or to
state legislatures (indirect initiative). With a direct initiative, the people vote, and if it passes, the
measure becomes law. With an indirect initiative, the measure goes first to the state legislature, which
typically can pass the measure into law; ignore it, in which case it goes to the people for a vote; or pass
their own alternative, which goes on the ballot along with the original measure. This brings voters into
a gray area, since state constitutions don’t always make clear what happens if both measures pass.

Initiatives usually require some number of signatures of registered voters to make it on the ballot. In
18 states, voters can use the initiative process to amend state constitution.

Direct ballot measures tend to peak when the economy is soft; in the U.S there were 183 measures
from the people on state ballots in 2010, but only 34 in 2011. In the latter year, 22 of those passed. In
100 years of initiative history, Oregon (351) and California (329) have had the most initiatives on the
ballot, by far.

In the U.S., initiatives grew out of the frustration of voters in the late 19th and early 20th centuries,
who found themselves unable to budge state governments on various issues. They saw state
government as too beholden to powerful interest groups such as mining and railroads, and saw the
initiative process as a convenient end-around maneuver to get past legislatures that appeared to be
locked down by lobbyists.

As with everything in government, initiatives have been used for good and for greed (which is which
naturally depends on your point of view). Citizens have used the initiative process to make the
political process more transparent, to increase funding for schools and various other public programs,
and to require more training for child-care providers. They have also been used to cut taxes, raise
taxes, decriminalize marijuana, limit abortion, and, in Oklahoma, make English the official language
of the state. Citizens certainly have the right to ask for these things. But when citizens in successive
years raise spending on schools but cut taxes (as they did in my state, Washington), you should begin
to get an idea of the challenges of the initiative process. Voters may not be paying enough attention to
recognize that simultaneously raising spending and cutting revenue may not be very good policy.
A good example of the mixed blessings of initiatives is California’s Proposition 13, passed in 1978. By
this initiative, citizens of California amended the state Constitution to limit future property tax
increases by no more than 2 percent. Property taxes tax property owners based on the assessed value
of their land and buildings. In some ways, the tax is a relic of the 19th century, when land was indeed
a good measure of people’s wealth. Now that very few of us are farmers, this might not be the case.
Nonetheless, property taxes continue to be a major source of revenue for state and local governments.
The trade-offs in Prop 13 should be fairly obvious: Property owners were protected from rising tax
rates in the often-booming California real estate market, since rising property values would otherwise
mean higher taxes for property owners. Voters also were concerned that retired people could be
priced out of their homes as property values and taxes continued to rise. On the other hand, state and
local government have been starved for cash ever since, particularly local governments such as cities
and school districts. Critics also say it interferes with the housing market since people are less likely to
sell their homes (a change of ownership means a new baseline assessment for tax value; otherwise the
baseline is the home value in 1975). So while it might have saved California taxpayers more than $500
billion, some of that money might have gone to things people say they want, like good schools. Clearly,
it’s a trade-off.

Meanwhile, initiatives have another shortcoming. For most initiatives, you get an up-or-down vote,
and the initiative is passed into law, unchangeable for a couple of years before a legislature can refine
it. Contrast that with the legislative process, in which a proposed law (a bill) is discussed, debated and
amended before it becomes law, and subject to change as soon as somebody recognizes that it doesn’t
work as planned.

Finally, although they are called citizen initiatives, increasingly they are a tool of people with money.
Courts have allowed paid signature-gatherers, a great help when you might need 200,000-300,000
valid signatures of registered voters to get a measure on the ballot. Campaigns are increasingly funded
by interest groups with an axe to grind, with money coming from out-of-state both for and against
measures that, ostensibly, are to be decided by the people of that state. While everyone has a right to
her or his opinion, and the freedom to express that opinion as they see fit, big-money initiative
campaigns seem a little different than what the original reformers had in mind.

Referenda

Referenda (the proper plural of referendum, also sometimes called plebiscites) are another form of
direct democracy, available in 24 U.S. states and more than 30 countries. Referenda allow legislatures
to put things before the people for a vote, such as constitutional amendments and tax measures.
(Every state except Delaware requires a vote by the citizens to approve constitutional amendments.)

Referenda also allow citizens to force a measure passed by a legislature onto the ballot, usually with
an eye to overturning that measure. Often this means there’s an interest group that wants a new law
changed, because it takes time, live bodies and money to mount a successful referendum campaign.
This usually features an expensive campaign in which the law is painted as a threat to mom, decency
and the republic, when it may in fact just be a threat to that particular industry. We may be for or
against businesses, unions or environmental groups who want to repeal a law, but it is their right to
pursue their interests.

Referenda have been used to make big decisions around the world. Voters in Scotland and Wales used
referenda to decide to create their own parliaments in 1997. Voters in Norway said no to joining the
European Union in 1994. Voters in Quebec, Canada chose not to secede from Canada in 1980 and
1995. Voters in Montenegro voted to leave what was left of Yugoslavia in 2006. And white voters in
South Africa in 1992 voted overwhelmingly to formally end the policy of apartheid, in which South
Africans of color were not allowed to vote.
In the U.S., in 2011 Maine voters used a referendum to overturn a new law that banned same-day
registration for voters (register to vote and get to vote on election day). Voters in Ohio overturned a
new law that limited unionized workers’ collective bargaining rights. In 2010, in Washington state,
voters approved the repeal of a 5-cent tax on bottled water and other “non-food” consumables. So
whatever we think of the measures, referenda give voters a chance to just say no.

Bonds and Levies

State and local governments in the United States in particular use direct democracy in another way—
votes on special levies and bond measures for schools and other public facilities. Levies are usually
additions to the local property tax—so many cents per $1,000 of assessed value of the
property. Bonds are a way in which government all over the world finance projects. If an investor buys
a bond, they are lending the government agency money, which means they get an interest payment,
plus their original investment back. Governments use this method of financing when they need a lot
of cash up front—if the local school district is building a new high school, the contractor has to get
paid so he or she can pay for the materials and pay all the workers. Investors may be willing to lend
money to the school district because it’s a relatively safe investment. So in a bond-issue election, local
governments are asking voters to promise to pay additional property tax to pay back the investors
who buy the bonds.

U.S. state constitutions often require such votes, which force local governments to explain to voters
why they need the money and what they will do with it. Some states add turnout requirements to such
special levies, which is fundamentally undemocratic if you think about it. If you are against the levy,
and if there’s a turnout requirement, the best thing you could do is stay home. Normally, not voting
means you have surrendered your voice in this matter; turnout requirements effectively reward not
voting. Others argue that it simply puts more pressure on school, water and fire districts to work
harder to prove to voters that they need the money. Turn-out requirements for school levies were
eased in Washington state after many school districts found themselves getting “yes” votes by as much
as 90 percent, only to see the levies fail because not enough voters showed up at the polls. You will
have to decide which argument makes more sense to you. Some bond measures also require a super-
majority, so that the measure needs a 60 percent yes-vote to pass.
KEY TA KEA WA YS
 Democracy literally means “direct rule by the people.” Sometimes this is referred to as “direct democracy.”
 Direct democracy existed only partially in ancient Greek citystates such as Athens.
 Direct democracy is found in initiatives, referenda, and local levy and bond issue votes.
EXERCI SES
1. Does your state allow initiatives and/or referenda? If so, how have these been used to change the law in
your state?
2. How much do local governments in your area, such as school or fire districts, rely on special levies for
funding? Is there a minimum turn-out requirement for approval?

4.2 Indirect Democracy
PLEASE NOTE: This book is currently in draft form; material is not final.
LEA RN I N G OB J ECTI VES
In this section, you will learn:
1. What a republic is.
2. The different kinds of republics.
3. Alternatives to republican forms of government.
Republics
The problems and opportunities of direct democracy haven’t changed in 3,000 years of written
history. At best, they empower the people to make needed changes. At worst, they put important
decisions directly in the hands of people who may get carried away by the passion of the moment, or
simply aren’t paying enough attention.

How then do we create a government that both gives people a voice but still manages to let
government be run by folks who are at least paying attention? The answer for some has been the
republic. In a republic, strictly speaking, people elect others who make decisions on their behalf.
When you consider that even in ancient Athens, the assembly of 6,000 still elected a council of 500,
you see that most democratic governments have included some features of a republic. Because they
typically let a broad range of citizens vote, we might call them democratic republics, but as that
term was used by so many erstwhile communist states, “democratic republic” can have multiple
meanings.

Republics are designed to put a check on the passions of the people, which can make them seem
remote and unresponsive. The designers of the U.S. Constitution did not see themselves as
“democrats,” as democracy to them, from their reading of history, looked like rule by the mob. The
party of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, which eventually became the Democratic Party,
originally called themselves Republicans (in some texts, they are referred to as “Democratic-
Republicans,” but they apparently never referred to themselves as such). Hence the many layers of
government, and checks and balances, that one finds in various republics—all designed to slow the
whole process down.

This, of course, can be maddening if what you want is government to do something—anything—make

a change. On the other hand, making government work more slowly, forcing the governors to
deliberate and discuss, isn’t lacking in virtue either. Governments are full of people, and people are
simultaneously capable of flights of inspiration and genius as well as complete foolishness. So in a
republic, the goal tends to be to stop things from happening as much as it is to make things happen.
What we also hope for in republics is that an idea that becomes a law is hammered, recut and welded
until the idea is so compelling that everyone says yes.

Of the 192 recognized sovereign nations in the world, only about 10 are not some kind of republic, in
which people vote for representatives who in some way make up the government. Not everyone is
called a republic—there are around 40 constitutional monarchies, in which they still have a king or
queen who remains head of state in a ceremonial role. The United Kingdom, Spain, Norway and
Sweden are constitutional monarchies. Despite the presence of a monarch, it is the people who are
elected to office who make the real decisions.

In some republics, such as the United States, power is divided between executive, legislative and
judicial branches. In other countries, such as Canada and the United Kingdom, the legislative branch
(parliament) holds both legislative and executive power.

A handful of states call themselves republics, and also still call themselves communist, such as China
and Vietnam, which should be an oxymoron. Republics rely on elections, and communism does not
allow meaningful elections.
True republics are distinguished by elections, in which people seek office and citizens decide by voting
who gets in office. A republic also features an elected legislature, such as an assembly, a congress or
parliament, whose job it is to make laws. A republic may have a separately elected president, or a
prime minister who is chosen from the majority party in parliament. Some parliamentary republics
also have a separately elected president, whose job is largely ceremonial.

Some republics are categorized as illiberal democracies. They have elections, which aren’t necessarily
free and fair. They tend to have less meaningful preservation of civil rights and liberties. They also
tend to control the media. Russia tends to be the prime example of such a state. People who oppose
sometime president, sometime prime minister Vladimir Putin keep ending up in jail. Singapore is
sometimes considered an illiberal democracy, because a single party tends to dominate the
government and citizens there lack some civil liberties. Mexico was an illiberal republic for much of
the 20th century, as the Institutional Revolutionary Party (the PRI, in its Spanish-language acronym)
dominated elections, even when they probably weren’t winning.

Some are in between the parliamentary and president/congress models. France is a semi-presidential
republic. Power is divided between executive, legislative and judicial branches. But the president
shares some powers with the prime minister, who represents the majority party in the French
parliament and is appointed by the president. This is no problem if the president and the majority in
the National Assembly are from the same party, and quite a bit trickier if they’re not. The president
can dissolve the assembly and call for new elections, but if the new elections don’t change the balance
of power, the president can expect to have an even more difficult time with an assembly dominated by
his or her opponents. (And if that wasn’t enough complexity, there’s an appointed constitutional
council to rule on the constitutionality of new laws.)

The Moral Foundations of Politics: Democracy and Majority Rule

Watch both parts of this lecture on democracy and majority rule. Shapiro's focus in these two lectures is
majority rule, democratic competition, and representation. Providing both historical and contemporary
examples, Shapiro shows how majority rule lends legitimacy to collective decisions. He also explores
concerns about the tyranny of the majority. True democracies require both majority rule, but also the
protection of minority rights.

Capitalism in the United States

If you recall, to "study politics is to "study power – who gets what, and how". Since politics is about the
distribution of resources in a society, studying economics is critical. Some of the most contentious political
questions involve questions of economics: How much should wealthy citizens pay in taxes? How much
should lower-income citizens pay in taxes? Where should those tax dollars go? What is fair, and what is
not fair? In this chapter, will read about "democratic capitalism", which is the United States' answer to
some of these questions of how resources should be distributed in a society. Pay close attention to the
"three pillars" of a democratic capitalist political-economic system.
Democratic capitalism is a political, economic, and social system with a market-based economy that is
largely based on a democratic political system.
 
Learning Objective
Demonstrate how capitalism in the US is controlled by its democratic political system
 
Key Points
  The United States is often seen as having a democratic capitalist political-economic system.
 The three pillars of democratic capitalism include economic incentives through free markets, fiscal
responsibility, and a liberal moral-cultural system that encourages pluralism.
 Some commentators argue that, although economic growth under capitalism has led to
democratization in the past, it may not do so in the future; for example, authoritarian regimes have
been able to manage economic growth without making concessions to greater political freedom.
 Proponents of capitalism have argued that indices of economic freedom correlate strongly with
higher income, life expectancy, and standards of living.
 Democratic Peace Theory states that capitalist democracies rarely make war with each other, and
have little internal conflict. However, critics argue that this may have nothing to do with the
capitalist nature of the states, and more to do with the democratic nature instead.
 
Terms

 Capitalism: A socio-economic system based on the abstraction of resources into the form of
privately-owned money, wealth, and goods, with economic decisions made largely through the
operation of a market unregulated by the state
 Pluralism: A social system based on mutual respect for each other's cultures among various groups
that make up a society, wherein subordinate groups do not have to forsake their lifestyle and
traditions, but, rather, can express their culture and participate in the larger society free of
prejudice.
 Tripartite: In three parts
 Polity: An organizational structure of the government of a state, church, etc.
 
Example
Singapore's de facto one-party system has been described as an example of an authoritarian capitalist
system that other authoritarian governments may follow. However, polls have recently suggested that the
ruling PAP party is suffering declines in popularity, suggesting that increasing material gains may not
make up for a lack of political freedoms. The Singaporean government has introduced limited political
concessions, suggesting that authoritarian capitalist systems may transition to democracy in time.
 
Democratic Capitalism and the US
The United States is often seen as having a democratic capitalist political-economic system. Democratic
capitalism, also known as capitalist democracy, is a political, economic, and social system and ideology
based on a tripartite arrangement of a market-based economy that is based predominantly on a
democratic polity. The three pillars include economic incentives through free markets, fiscal responsibility,
and a liberal moral-cultural system, which encourages pluralism.
In the United States, both the Democratic and Republican Parties subscribe to this (little "d" and "r")
democratic-republican philosophy. Most liberals and conservatives generally support some form of
democratic capitalism in their economic practices. The ideology of "democratic capitalism" has been in
existence since medieval times. It is based firmly on the principles of liberalism, which include liberty and
equality. Some of its earliest promoters include many of the American founding fathers and subsequent
Jeffersonians.
This economic system supports a capitalist, free-market economy subject to control by a democratic
political system that is supported by the majority. It stands in contrast to authoritarian capitalism by
limiting the influence of special interest groups, including corporate lobbyists, on politics. Some argue that
the United States has become more authoritarian in recent decades.
 
The Relationship between Democracy and Capitalism
The relationship between democracy and capitalism is a contentious area in theory and among popular
political movements. The extension of universal adult male suffrage in 19 th century Britain occurred
alongside the development of industrial capitalism. Since democracy became widespread at the same time
as capitalism, many theorists have been led to posit a causal relationship between them. In the
20th century, however, according to some authors, capitalism also accompanied a variety of political
formations quite distinct from liberal democracies, including fascist regimes, absolute monarchies, and
single-party states.
While some argue that capitalist development leads to the emergence of democracy, others dispute this
claim. Some commentators argue that, although economic growth under capitalism has led to
democratization in the past, it may not do so in the future. For example, authoritarian regimes have been
able to manage economic growth without making concessions to greater political freedom. States that
have highly capitalistic economic systems have thrived under authoritarian or oppressive political systems.
Examples include:

 Singapore, which maintains a highly open market economy and attracts lots of foreign investment,
does not protect civil liberties such as freedom of speech and expression.
 The private (capitalist) sector in the People's Republic of China has grown exponentially and thrived
since its inception, despite having an authoritarian government.
 Augusto Pinochet's rule in Chile led to economic growth by using authoritarian means to create a
safe environment for investment and capitalism.
Scatter graph of the People's Republic of China's GDP between years 1952 to 2005, based on publicly
available nominal GDP data published by the People's Republic of China and compiled by Hitotsubashi
University (Japan) and confirmed by economic indicator statistics from the World Bank.

Democratic Socialism
As the name implies, "democratic socialism" relies on a democratic political system and a socialist
economic system. Generally speaking, democratic capitalism values economic freedom more than
economic equality. Proponents of democratic socialism would be more likely to highly value economic
equality than would proponents of democratic capitalism. Which do you think is more important in
political-economic systems, freedom or equality? Do you think freedom and equality are mutually
exclusive economic goals?
Democratic socialism combines the political philosophy of democracy with the economic philosophy of
socialism.
 
Learning Objective
Discuss democratic socialism and how it differs from other ideas held by the government about the
working class
 
Key Points

 Democratic socialism is contrasted with political movements that resort to authoritarian means to
achieve a transition to socialism. It advocates the immediate creation of decentralized economic
democracy from the grassroots level.
  Democratic socialists distinguish themselves from Leninists, who believe in an organized revolution
instigated and directed by an overarching vanguard party that operates on the basis of democratic
centralism.
 Eugene V. Debs, one of the most famous American socialists, led a movement centered around
democratic socialism and made five bids for president.
 In Britain, the democratic socialist tradition was represented in particular by William Morris'
Socialist League and, in the 1880s, by the Fabian Society.
 In Britain, the democratic socialist tradition was represented in particular by William Morris'
Socialist League and, in the 1880s, by the Fabian Society.
 
Terms

 Democratic socialism: A left-wing ideology that aims to introduce democracy into the workforce,
i.e. worker cooperatives, and ensure public provision of basic human needs.
 Leninism: In Marxist philosophy, Leninism is the body of political theory for the democratic
organization of a revolutionary vanguard party, and the achievement of a direct-democracy
dictatorship of the proletariat, as a political prelude to the establishment of socialism.
 Fabian Society: The Fabian Society is a British socialist organization whose purpose is to advance
the principles of democratic socialism via gradualist and reformist, rather than revolutionary,
means.
 
Example
France is an example of a democratic socialist state. France subscribes to a democratic structure of free
elections and the country recently elected a socialist president.
Democratic socialism combines the political philosophy of democracy with the economic philosophy of
socialism. The term can refer to a range of political and economic organizational schemes. On one end,
democratic socialism may combine a democratic national political system with a national economy based
on socialist principles. On the other end, democratic socialism may refer to a system that uses democratic
principles to organize workers in a firm or community (for example, in worker cooperatives).
The term is used by socialist movements and organizations to emphasize the democratic character of their
political orientation. Democratic socialism contrasts with political movements that resort to authoritarian
means to achieve a transition to socialism. Rather than focus on central planning, democratic socialism
advocates the immediate creation of decentralized economic democracy from the grassroots level,
undertaken by and for the working class itself. Specifically, it is a term used to distinguish between
socialists who favor a grassroots-level, spontaneous revolution (referred to as gradualism) from those
socialists who favor Leninism (organized revolution instigated and directed by an overarching vanguard
party that operates on the basis of democratic centralism).
 
Historical Examples
The term has also been used by various historians to describe the ideal of economic socialism in an
established political democracy. Democratic socialism became a prominent movement at the end of the
19th century. In the United States, Eugene V. Debs, one of the most famous American socialists, led a
movement centered around democratic socialism. Debs made five bids for president: once in 1900 as
candidate of the Social Democratic Party and then four more times on the ticket of the Socialist Party of
America. In Britain, the democratic socialist tradition was represented historically by William Morris'
Socialist League and, in the 1880s, by the Fabian Society.
What's up with Bernie Sanders and Democratic Socialism Anyway?
In the previous article, you explored the definition of democratic socialism. This audio clip gives you the
opportunity to hear how the term "democratic socialism" can be applied to contemporary politics. The
speaker describes the difference between socialists and communists. Socialists, he describes, were those
who wanted to work within the system, making it better, while communists were determined to have only
state enterprise and economic planning. Then, there was a third group of socialists who wanted a
socialism that was closely intertwined with and "married" to a real democracy. Listen closely to how the
speaker describes what democratic socialism looks like in practice.

Other Forms of Government

Read from the subheading "Other Forms of Government: Monarchy" to the end of Section 4.2. Think back
to Unit 1, where we considered a government’s source of legitimacy. What do you think is the source of
legitimacy for monarchies, constitutional monarchies, authoritarian governments, and totalitarian
governments? According to this article, a survey of experts classified 53 states as authoritarian, 37 as
hybrid, 53 as flawed democracies, and only 25 as full democracies. Why do you think democracy is so hard
to achieve and sustain?
Other Forms of Government: Monarchy
Monarchy means rule by a monarch, a king, a queen, a sultan—whatever title fits the language and
tradition of that country. As we just noted, most monarchies that remain in the world—around 40,
depending on who’s counting—are constitutional monarchies, in which someone maintains the title
and the job of “head of state” but all real political power rests with some elected portion of
government, such as a parliament or other-named legislative body. For example, in 1892, William
Gladstone was chosen as prime minister (head of government of Great Britain) when his Liberal Party
won a majority in the House of Commons. Queen Victoria (1819-1901) didn’t like Gladstone (who had
qualms about Britain’s growing empire, and the queen found herself liking this idea of empire more
and more as it grew), but she was effectively bound by law to name him prime minister.

Four nations in the world (Brunei, Oman, Qatar and Saudi Arabia) are still absolute monarchies. In
several states states, Swaziland, Kuwait, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates, are mixed, in which
the monarch shares some power with elected officials. In each of these countries except Kuwait,
legislative bodies are partially elected and partially appointed by the monarch. In Jordan, Morocco,
Monaco and Lichtenstein, the monarch still plays an active role in government. You will note that
aside from Lichtenstein, Swaziland and Monaco, are all these are Middle Eastern states, most of
which are relatively wealthy from oil.

Consider Saudi Arabia. It may be the only state in the world that is named after its ruling family, the
Sauds. Adul-Aziz Ibn Saud created the kingdom by force in 1932, and his descendants have ruled ever
since. Normally, royal succession proceeds from generation to generation; the kings of Saudi Arabia
to date all have been brothers. Abdul-Aziz ibn Saud had 22 wives, and 37–45 sons (estimates vary). As
a consequence, he is survived by about 15,000 family members, including 2,000 more-or-less direct
descendants who help run the country. It was only in 2006 that the ruling family agreed that
subsequent kings would by chosen by a council of 32 top-ranking family members, who are to
consider the skill, experience, popularity and religious sentiments of eligible candidates.
How does this all work? Saudi Arabia has 13 provinces, all governed by royal princes (of whom there
may be as many as 7,000). Royal family members hold all of the top offices, such as head of defense,
foreign relations, and minister of the interior. The king is both head of state and head of government.

We might also ask how such a state maintains legitimacy. Public protests against the government are
officially banned, and the royal family justifies its rule as sanctioned by the Quran, the Moslem holy
book. In fact, Abdul-Aziz ibn Saud gained power in part by allying himself with leaders of the
Wahabbist/Salafi sect of Islam, thus adopting a fairly strict interpretation of the Quran. Religious
authorities still have a great deal of influence on government and policy. Women can’t vote, but then
again, not much of anybody else can either. The country had local elections in 2005 and 2011, and
King Abdullah has said that women will be able to run for office and vote in local elections in 2015.

Legitimacy comes in part through the elevation of faith; the Quran and other holy documents are
regarded as the national constitution. Some public participation in governance is possible through the
court system, in which separate court systems deal with religious matters (the Sharia courts),
grievances, and local matters. The government also maintains some of its tribal heritage, in that
anyone can petition the king to discuss a grievance, and members of the royal family are regularly
employed in hearing such petitions.

The state also attempts to provide higher standards of living by investing its oil wealth in education
and economic development, with some positive results. But citizens sometimes complain that some
members of the royal family treat national wealth as personal wealth. So the monarchy, while
absolute, must balance the competing demands of citizens, religious authorities, other wealthy
families within the country, and forces within and without the country that would prefer to see some
other form of government there. This may be part of the reason why the great majority of monarchies
evolved into constitutional monarchies—the challenges of maintaining legitimacy are greater when
citizens lack enough of a voice in the affairs of state.
Authoritarian Governments/Dictatorships
Including monarchies, the world still has a fistful of authoritarian governments, but that is slowly
changing. The popular uprisings of the Arab Spring in 2011 toppled authoritarian governments in
Tunisia, Libya and Egypt. Syria is suffering through what amounts to a civil war between opponents
and supporters of rule by the Assad family. Myanmar (Burma) finally allowed elections after 40 years
of military rule. Turkmenistan, a former Soviet republic in Central Asia, is effectively a one-party
state, as is Belorussia, another former Soviet republic.

But others remain. The magazine The Economist, using a method that relies heavily on surveying
“experts,” counted 53 states as authoritarian, plus 37 as “hybrid,” 53 as “flawed democracies,” and
only 25 as full democracies. The Economist looked thing such as for “free and fair elections,” political
participation, and whether government works the way it’s supposed to (such as civil servants being
able to perform their jobs fairly). So flawed democracies don’t score well on all categories, and hybrid
states have authoritarian and well as democratic elements at work.

Only two states, North Korea and Cuba, still operate the collectivized economy typical of 20th century
communist states such as the Soviet Union. And from time to time, a state is ruled by its own military,
such as recently in Fiji and Guinea-Bissau, while the Vatican City and Iran are theocracies—states
ruled by a church.

Whereas the remaining monarchies attempt to remain in power by sharing enough of their oil wealth
that citizens are willing to put up with rule by a hereditary monarch, authoritarian governments tend
to hang on through force and propaganda. Authoritarian states do not have meaningful elections;
public dissent is discouraged if not forbidden. They tend to grow out of responses to public unrest and
dissension, but hang on because of fear, greed and a lust for power. Many authoritarian states are
poor. Modernization theory suggests that states will not become democratic until they become
wealthy enough; a state’s chance of becoming and remaining democratic improves greatly after per
capita GDP surpasses $5,000. Mexico did not have truly free elections until 1993, when a candidate
from a party other than the PRI won the presidency and control of the Mexican Congress (and Mexico
has had competitive elections ever since). The key difference seems to be Mexico’s growing wealth.
When people are wealthy enough, they seem more willing to let democratic institutions work.

The two most authoritarian states, according to rankings of The Economist, are North Korea and the
Central African Republic. The Central African Republic has suffered from 150 years of slave raids,
colonial oppression, and the last 50 years of uncertain elections, military coups and general misrule.
And it’s still probably a more free place to live than North Korea.

North Korea, at the bottom of nearly every ranking, is the better known of the two. Korea, since about
700 CE, was one country, even when it was under the thumb of China or Japan. During World War II,
communist guerrillas fought the Japanese, along with non-communists. After the war, the country
was divided, north and south, with the communists ending up in the north. The south, formally the
Republic of Korea, was not a very liberal state, but its economy grew and eventually it entered the
ranks of true democracies with real elections in 1993. By at least one measure, it has the world’s 13th
largest economy.

North Korea attempted to reunite with the south by force in the Korean War (1950–1953). Things
went downhill from there. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea turned inward, using the
United States (and the rest of the world) as a bogeyman to keep people in a perpetual state of fear.
Members of the Kim family have ruled the country throughout its history. The nation spends 25
percent of GDP on defense (the U.S. spends less than 5, which is high by world standards), including
developing a nuclear weapons program, even as malnutrition and starvation plague much of the
population. South Korea has roughly twice as many people as North Korea, but its economy is 17
times larger than the north’s. One report said that a third of North Korean children show visible
effects of malnutrition.“Millions of North Korean children suffering from malnutrition, says
UN,” http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jun/12/north-korean-children-malnutrition-un

So how does the government stay in power? Geography plays a role—North Korea is bordered only by
South Korea and China, so it’s a little harder for people to flee. The government has eliminated all
potential sources of opposition—the only real interest group is the military, and it is well supported by
the state. There are no unions, no business groups, no other political factions. The state apparatus
sniffs out any hint of dissent, which is dealt with brutally. People are either “re-educated” or simply
executed, and under the “three-generations” policy, entire families are punished if one member makes
a mistake. North Korea’s constant saber-rattling at the rest of the world keeps the military happy and
many people apparently believing that whichever Kim is currently in power is the only thing that
stands between them and annihilation by foreign powers. Meanwhile, other nations continue to give
North Korea aid, in between nuclear tests. Economic sanctions designed to force change only affect
the ruled, not the rulers; China, South Korea and the United States avoid sanctions that might hurt
the elites who run the country because nobody wants to see North Korea collapse (a cure that might
be worse than the disease).Daniel Bynum, et al, “Keeping Kim: How North Korea’s Regime Stays in
Power,” http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/20269/keeping_kim.html

Authoritarian governments rarely make people better off, and yet they persist. Some scholars
distinguish between totalitarian and authoritarian governments. Totalitarian governments are seen as
more extreme, with a single ruler relying on charisma to convince the people that he’s really on their
side. Authoritarian governments have a higher level of corruption (raiding the public treasury for
private gain, or simply accepting bribes). Totalitarian governments are ideological—there’s an
overriding, underlying philosophy that drives the system.Sondrol, P. C., “Totalitarian and
Authoritarian Dictators: A Comparison of Fidel Castro and Alfredo Stroessner”. Journal of Latin
American Studies, Vol. 23, No. 3, 1991. So, Benito Mussolini’s Fascist rule of Italy was totalitarian; the
military dictatorship of Myanmar/Burma was not. Totalitarian governments don’t usually have
elections. Authoritarian governments might, but the results are often in doubt—the elections may not
have been free and fair.

The Marxist Critique of Capitalism

In capitalism, private property rights are fundamental and freedom in economic interactions is paramount.
Marxism and communism offer an alternative explanation of socioeconomic structures that focuses more
on the exploitative potential of capitalism. How else is Marx's view of social-economic relations different
than the capitalist view?
Karl Marx saw capitalism as a progressive historical stage that would eventually be followed by socialism.
 
Learning Objective
Examine Karl Marx's view on capitalism and the criticisms of the capitalist system
 
Key Points

 Karl Marx saw capitalism as a progressive historical stage that would eventually stagnate due to
internal contradictions and be followed by socialism.
 Marxists define capital as "a social, economic relation" between people (rather than between
people and things). In this sense they seek to abolish capital.
 Revolutionary socialists believe that capitalism can only be overcome through revolution.
 Social democrats believe that structural change can come slowly through political reforms to
capitalism.
 Marxists define capital as "a social, economic relation" between people (rather than between
people and things).
 Normative Marxism advocates a revolutionary overthrow of capitalism that would lead to socialism,
before eventually transforming into communism after class antagonisms and the state ceased to
exist.
 
Terms

 Revolution: A political upheaval in a government or nation-state characterized by great change.

 Socialism: Any of various economic and political philosophies that support social equality, collective
decision-making, distribution of income based on contribution and public ownership of productive
capital and natural resources, as advocated by socialists.
 Progressive: Favoring or promoting progress; advanced.
 
Example
The Occupy Wall Street movement is an example of how many Americans are dissatisfied with the current
capitalist system and seek more equal distribution of opportunity and goods.
Capitalism has been the subject of criticism from many perspectives during its history. Criticisms range
from people who disagree with the principles of capitalism in its entirety, to those who disagree with
 particular outcomes of capitalism. Among those wishing to replace capitalism with a different method of
production and social organization, a distinction can be made between those believing that capitalism can
only be overcome with revolution (e.g., revolutionary socialism) and those believing that structural change
can come slowly through political reforms to capitalism (e.g., classic social democracy).
Karl Marx saw capitalism as a progressive historical stage that would eventually stagnate due to internal
contradictions and be followed by socialism. Marxists define capital as "a social, economic relation"
between people (rather than between people and things). In this sense, Marxists seek to abolish capital.
They believe that private ownership of the means of production enriches capitalists (owners of capital) at
the expense of workers. In brief, the owners of the means of production exploit the workforce.
In Karl Marx's view, the dynamic of capital would eventually impoverish the working class and thereby
create the social conditions for a revolution. Private ownership over the means of production and
distribution is seen as creating a dependence of non-owning classes on the ruling class, and ultimately as
a source of restriction of human freedom.
Marxists have offered various related lines of argument claiming that capitalism is a contradiction-laden
system characterized by recurring crises that have a tendency towards increasing severity. They have
argued that this tendency of the system to unravel, combined with a socialization process that links
workers in a worldwide market, create the objective conditions for revolutionary change. Capitalism is seen
as just one stage in the evolution of the economic system.
Normative Marxism advocates for a revolutionary overthrow of capitalism that would lead to socialism,
before eventually transforming into communism after class antagonisms and the state cease to exist.
Marxism influenced social democratic and labor parties as well as some moderate democratic socialists,
who seek change through existing democratic channels instead of revolution, and believe that capitalism
should be regulated rather than abolished.

The Communist Economic System

Read the section "The Communist Economic System", and then click "next" twice so that you also read
"The Benefits of Communism", and "The Disadvantages of Communism". These sections expand upon the
ideas introduced in the previous reading. Be sure you click "next" twice so that you read all of the relevant
sections. In particular, these sections describe the economic features of a communist system, which
include collective state ownership of capital, and state control over inputs, outputs, labor, and prices. In
theory, communism provides some benefits, such as equality and job security for all. However, in practice,
communist economic systems have been shown to be quite inefficient. Do you think it will ever be
possible to create a well-functioning communist state?

The communist economic system is one where class distinctions are eliminated
and the community as a whole owns the means to production.
KEY POINTS
 Karl Marx and Freidrich Engels wrote the Communist Manifesto in 1848, in response to poor working
conditions for workers across Europe. The goal was to establish a system where class distinctions were
eliminated and the means of production were owned by the masses.
 Recent attempts at creating political economic systems have led to state-driven authoritarian
economies with unaccountable political elites, further driving power away from the hands of the masses.
 A Command Economy is characterized by collective ownership of capital: property is owned by the
State, production levels are determined by the State via advanced planning mechanisms rather than
supply and demand, and prices are regulated and controlled.
Terms
 Proletariat:  The proletariat (from Latin proletarius, a citizen of the lowest class) is a term used to
identify a lower social class, usually the working class; a member of such a class is proletarian. Originally
it was identified as those people who had no wealth other than their children.
 Bourgeoisie:  In sociology and political science, bourgeoisie (Fr.: [buʁ.ʒwa’zi] | Eng.: /bʊrʒwɑziː/) and
the adjective bourgeois are terms that describe a historical range of socio-economic classes. Since the
late 18th century in the Western world, the bourgeoisie describes a social class that is characterized by
their ownership of capital and their related culture. In contemporary academic theories, the term
bourgeoisie usually refers to the ruling class in capitalist societies. In Marxist theory, the abiding
characteristics of this class are their ownership of the means of production.
 Command economy:  Most of the economy is planned by a central government authority and organized
along a top-down administration where decisions regarding production output requirements and
investments are decided by planners from the top, or near the top, of the chain of command.
Examples
 The former USSR (or Soviet Union) is the typical example of a communistic, command economy. It was
formed in 1922 by the Bolshevik party of the former Russian Empire. In 1928, Joseph Stalin achieved
party leadership and introduced the first Five Year Plan, ending the limited level of capitalism that still
existed. In 1991, under Mikhael Gorbachev, the Soviet Union was dissolved.
 A modern day example is China, particularly in the 70s, 80s and 90s. Today, China is seen to be more
of an authoritarian capitalist rather than communistic command economy.
The Communist Economic System

A communist economic system is an economic system where, in theory, economic decisions are
made by the community as a whole. In reality, however, attempts to establish communism have
ended up creating state-driven authoritarian economies and regimes which benefit single party
political élite who are not accountable to the people or community.

Communist theory was developed by a German philosopher in the 1800s named Karl Marx . He
thought that the only way to have a harmonious society was to put workers in control. This idea was
established during the Industrial Revolution when many workers were treated unfairly in France,
Germany, and England.

Communist Ideology
The Hammer and Sickle represents the communion of the peasant and the worker.

Marx did not want there to be a difference in economic classes and he wanted class struggle to be
eliminated. His main goal was to abolish capitalism (an economic system ruled by private ownership).
Marx abhorred capitalism because the proletariat was exploited and unfairly represented in politics,
and because capitalism allows the bourgeoisie to control a disproportionate amount of power.
Therefore, he thought that if everything was shared and owned by everyone, a worker’s paradise or
Utopia could be achieved.

Together with Friedrich Engel, a German economist, Marx wrote a pamphlet called the Communist
Manifesto. This was published in 1848 and it expressed Marx’s ideas on communism. However, it
was later realized that communism did not work. Most interpretations or attempts to establish
communism have ended up creating state-driven authoritarian economies and regimes which benefit
single party political élite who are not accountable to the people at all.
Command Planned Economy

An economy characterized by Command Planning is notable for several distinguishing features:

1. Collective or state ownership of capital: capital resources such as money, property and other physical
assets are owned by the State. There is no (or very little) private ownership.
 2. Inputs and outputs are determined by the State: the State has an elaborate planning mechanism in
place that determines the level and proportions of inputs to be devoted to producing goods and services.
Local planning authorities are handed 1 year, 5 year, 10 year or, in the case of China, up to 25-year
plans. The local authorities then implement these plans by meeting with State Owned Enterprises,
whereby further plans are developed specific to the business. Inputs are allocated according to the plans
and output targets are set.
3. Labor is allocated according to state plans: in a command planning economy, there is no choice of
profession; when a child is in school (from a very early age), a streaming system allocates people into
designated industries.
4. Private ownership is not possible: under a command planning system an individual cannot own shares,
real estate, or any other form of physical or non-physical asset. People are allocated residences by the
State.
5. Prices and paying for goods and services: prices are regulated entirely by the State with little regard for
the actual costs of production. Often a currencydoes not exist in a command planning economy and
when it does, its main purpose is for accounting. Instead of paying for goods and services when you
need to buy them, you are allocated goods and services. This is often also called rationing.

In western democratic and capitalist societies, the price mechanism is a fundamental operator in

allocating resources. The laws of demand and supply interact, the price of goods (and services) send
signals to producers and consumers alike to determine what goods and quantities are produced, and
helps determine what the future demands and quantities will be.

The law of demand states that the higher the price of a good or service, the less the amount of that
good or service will be consumed. In other words, the quantity of a good or service demanded, rises
when the price falls and falls when the price increases.

The Benefits of Communism

Communism ideology supports widespread universal social welfare, including
improvements in public health and education.
KEY POINTS
 The theoretical advantages of communism are built around equality and strong social communities.
 Communist ideology advocates universal education with a focus on developingthe proletariat with
knowledge, class consciousness, and historical understanding.
 Communism supports the emancipation of women and the ending of their exploitation.
 Communist ideology emphasizes the development of a “New Man”—a class-conscious,
knowledgeable, heroic, proletarian person devoted to work and social cohesion, as opposed to
the antithetic “bourgeois individualist” associated with cultural backwardness and social atomisation.

 
Terms
 Communism:  A political philosophy or ideology advocating holding the production of
resources collectively
 Antithetic:  Diametrically opposed.
 Bourgeois:  Of or relating to capitalist exploitation of the proletariat.
 Proletariat:  The working class or lower class.
Examples
 In theory, Communism seems to have some very desirable characteristics. In practice, however, it has
many drawbacks, and historically it seems that only the most corrupt members of Communist
 governments have gained advancement within systems. When a system depends on an entire
community but is controlled by a few corrupt bureaucrats, it cannot be successful.
 However, this is not to say that state run enterprises in certain areas are a bad idea. Publicly-owned
utilities such as water, electricity, and postal services have proven to be beneficial in countries, even
when no communist system exists.
The Benefits of Communism

Theoretically, there are many benefits that can be achieved through a communist society. Communist
ideology supports widespread universal social welfare. Improvements in public health and education,
provision of child care, provision of state-directed social services, and provision of social benefits will,
theoretically, help to raise labor productivity and advance a society in its development. Communist
ideology advocates universal education with a focus on developing the proletariat with knowledge,
class consciousness, and historical understanding. Communism supports the emancipation of women
and the ending of their exploitation. Both cultural and educational policy in communist states have
emphasized the development of a “New Man”—a class-conscious, knowledgeable, heroic, proletarian
person devoted to work and social cohesion, as opposed to the antithetic “bourgeois individualist”
associated with cultural backwardness and social atomization.

Other theoretically beneficial ideas characteristic of communist societies include:

1. People are equal. In a communist regime, people are treated equally in the eyes of the
government regardless of education, financial standing, et cetera. Economic boundaries don’t separate
or categorize people, which can help mitigate crime and violence.
2. Every citizen can keep a job. In a communist system, people are entitled to jobs. Because the
government owns all means of production, the government can provide jobs for at least a majority of the
people. Everyone in a communist country is given enough work opportunities to live and survive. Every
citizen, however, must do his or her part for the economy to receive pay and other work benefits.
3. There is an internally stable economic system. In communism, the government dictates economic
structure; therefore, economic instability is out of the question. Every citizen is required to work in order
to receive benefits, and those who don’t have corresponding sanctions. This creates an incentive to
participate and to encourage economic growth.
4. Strong social communities are established. In communism, there are certain laws and goals which
determine resource and responsibility allocation. If the citizens abide by these laws, this leads to a
harmonious spirit of sharing one goal. Consequently, this builds stronger social communities and an
even stronger economy.
5. Competition doesn’t exist. In communist societies, everyone can work harmoniously without stepping
on each other’s toes. Work, responsibility, and rewards are shared equally among the citizens. If people
have no sense of envy, jealousy or ambitions that counter the goals of the state, then a harmonious
economic development can be maintained.
6. Efficient distribution of resources. In a communist society, the sense of cooperation allows
for efficiency in resource distribution. This is very important, especially in times of need and in
emergency situations. 

The Disadvantages of Communism

Businesses under Communist system have very strict limitations as to what they
can and cannot do, which can hamper productivity and innovation.
KEY POINTS
 In a Communist system, the central authority dictates the means and quantity of production, and places
strict rules on businesses.
 Since there is no competition amongst firms, each is given the same amount of money and each
worker is paid the same, with the same expectations of each.
  All businesses are ultimately owned by the government.
 Populations tend to be treated homogeneously, meaning that common goals or sets of rules will not
apply to different segments of the population and community.
 Without a price mechanism, supply and demand are difficult to balance perfectly over time.
Term
 Price mechanism:  An economic term that refers to the buyers and sellers who negotiate prices of
goods or services depending on demand and supply. A price mechanism or market-based mechanism
refers to a wide variety of ways to match up buyers and sellers through price rationing.
Example
 Ho Chi Minh raised a guerrilla army in Vietnam, promising them a Utopian communist future of rule by
the people and a communal country. However, what transpired was a nation ruled by corrupt Party
officials, with no rights or civil liberty. The theory peddled by Ho Chi Minh was far removed from the
practice of Communism once he was successfully elected. There are many other examples of how
Communism has failed the people of a country. Whether this is down simply to corrupt leaders, or to a
deeper flaw in the nature of Communism is a subject debated by many scholars .
Disadvantages of Communism

The economic and political system of Communism effectively dictates what can and cannot be done
in the realm of business. There are defined limitations for the amount a business can produce and
how much money it can earn.

In addition to directly controlling the means of production, Communism places strict rules as to how
businesses operate in such a way that a classless society is born. No matter what field a business
specializes in, the same amount of funds will be allocated to each, and each worker will receive the
same amount of money. This can cause emotional unrest between workers who wish to be specially
recognized for their work. It can serve to create uncomfortable conditions for workers in a society
without rank or varying specialty. Finally, it can be stifling to entrepreneurial spirit, which is key to a
country’s economic growth and development. The U.S., a capitalistic nation, has greatly benefited
from that small business and entrepreneurial atmosphere, a backdrop for the American dream.

More specifically, in Communism:

 The government owns all the businesses and properties (the means of production).
 There is no freedom of speech.
 Large or geographically-broad populations tend to be diverse, making it difficult to maintain a common
goal or set of rules for shared effort andresources.
 Central planning is difficult to achieve.
 Consumers needs are not taken into consideration.
 Productivity and efficiency are difficult to achieve without profit motive for the workers.
 It is difficult to achieve internal balances between supply and demand without a price mechanism.

The Kremlin
Only the government has a say in production planning under a Communist system.

Fascism
Read this definition of fascism and keep it in mind as you read more about Mussolini's fascist state and
the Nazi state.
Fascism (n.): A political regime, having totalitarian aspirations, ideologically based on a relationship
between business and the centralized government, business-and-government control of the market place,
repression of criticism or opposition, a leader cult, and the exaltation of the state and/or religion above
individual rights.
 
Examples
Fascism in Japan: Japanese Rise and Expansion

 In the aftermath of World War I, Japan's ambitions to become a global power led to establishing a
unique totalitarian political system that combined ancient Japanese traditions with elements of
European fascism and resulted in aggressive territorial expansion.
 The creation of the Imperial Rule Assistance Association in 1940 is also seen as a Japanese
response to the rise of fascism in Europe, which was to prevent the influences of German and
Italian fascist movements.
 Historians refer to it as statism in Shōwa Japan, Shōwa nationalism, or Japanese fascism.
 Pre-WWII Japan was characterized by political totalitarianism, ultra-nationalism, expansionism, and
fascism culminating in Japan's invasion of China in 1937.
 During the pre-1945 period, Japan moved into political totalitarianism, ultranationalism, and
fascism, as well as a series of expansionist wars, culminating in Japan's invasion of China in 1937.
 Left-wing groups had been subject to violent suppression by the end of the Taishō period, and
radical right-wing groups, inspired by fascism and Japanese nationalism, rapidly grew in popularity.

Political Critiques of the New Deal

 Some labeled the New Deal as fascism, although it is important to remember that at the time,
fascism did not connote the tragedy of World War II but rather an ideology of authoritarian
nationalism and planned economy, associated most often with Benito Mussolini's Italy.
 While some labeled Long a socialist, Roosevelt called him "one of the two most dangerous men in
America" and accused him of spreading fascism.
 His activism attracted widespread accusations of promoting fascism and criticism of both American
bishops and the Vatican.
 Sometimes they will call it 'Fascism', sometimes 'Communism', sometimes 'Regimentation',
sometimes 'Socialism'.

Issues with the Traditional Political Spectrum

 Most long-standing spectra include a right and left, and according to the simplest left-right axis,
communism and socialism are usually regarded internationally as being on the left, opposite
fascism and conservatism on the right.
 One alternative spectrum offered by the conservative American Federalist Journal accounts for only
the "degree of government control " without consideration for any other social or political variable
and, thus, places "fascism" (totalitarianism) at one extreme and "anarchy" (no government at all) at
the other extreme.

Fascists
Watch this lecture on the life of Adolf Hitler and how Nazism took hold in pre-World War II Germany.
Merriman describes the economic, political, and social situation in Germany that allowed Hitler and
Nazism to take root. Fascism and National Socialism are extreme forms of state ideology. According to
Merriman: 
"The Nazis and other fascist groups are better at saying whom they were against than what they wanted.
What they want is ultra-nationalism. What they want is a totalitarian state and the destruction of
parliamentary rule."
Why do you think fascists and other authoritarian governments tend to focus more on their enemies
rather than their goals?

National Socialism
Read the first section under "National Socialism". In its intense nationalism, mass appeal, and dictatorial
rule, National Socialism shared many elements with Italian fascism. However, Nazism was far more
extreme both in its ideas and in its practice. In almost every respect, it was an anti-intellectual and a
theoretical movement, emphasizing the will of the charismatic dictator as the sole source of inspiration of
a people and a nation, as well as a vision of the "annihilation of all enemies of the Aryan race". Think back
to the original definition of fascism. What parts of that definition apply to the Nazi state?

Islamism
Read the introductory paragraphs and the section under "Definitions". Islamism a modern ideology.
Whereas Islam is a religion that is in a class with Judaism and Christianity, Islamism is a political response
to ideologies that emerged in the modern West: communism, socialism, or capitalism. With the revival of
radical Islamism and its ties to terrorist activity (like the 9/11 attacks), much attention has been focused
among Western leaders on both the resurgence and the future of Islamism.
Islamism has been defined as:

 "the belief that Islam should guide social and political as well as personal life",[22]
 a form of "religionized politics" and an instance of religious fundamentalism[23]
 "political movement that favors reordering government and society in accordance with laws prescribed by
Islam" (from Associated Press's definition of "Islamist")[19]
 "[the term 'Islamist' has become shorthand for] 'Muslims we don't like.'" (from Council on American–Islamic
Relations's complaint about AP's earlier definition of Islamist)[19]
 "a theocratic ideology that seeks to impose any version of Islam over society by law". (Maajid Nawaz, a
former Islamist turned critic[24]). Subsequently, clarified as "the desire to impose any given interpretation of Islam
on society".[25]
 "the [Islamic] ideology that guides society as a whole and that [teaches] law must be in conformity with the
Islamic sharia",[26]
 a term "used by outsiders to denote a strand of activity which they think justifies their misconception of Islam
as something rigid and immobile, a mere tribal affiliation."[12][27]
 a movement so broad and flexible it reaches out to "everything to everyone" in Islam, making it
"unsustainable".[28]
o an alternative social provider to the poor masses;
o an angry platform for the disillusioned young;
o a loud trumpet-call announcing "a return to the pure religion" to those seeking an identity;
o a "progressive, moderate religious platform" for the affluent and liberal;
o ... and at the extremes, a violent vehicle for rejectionists and radicals.[28]
 an Islamic "movement that seeks cultural differentiation from the West and reconnection with the pre-
colonial symbolic universe",[29]
 "the organised political trend [...] that seeks to solve modern political problems by reference to Muslim texts
[...] the whole body of thought which seeks to invest society with Islam which may be integrationist, but may also
be traditionalist, reform-minded or even revolutionary"[30]
 "the active assertion and promotion of beliefs, prescriptions, laws or policies that are held to be Islamic in
character,"[9]
 a movement of "Muslims who draw upon the belief, symbols, and language of Islam to inspire, shape, and
animate political activity;" which may contain moderate, tolerant, peaceful activists or those who "preach
intolerance and espouse violence."[31]
 "All who seek to Islamize their environment, whether in relation to their lives in society, their family
circumstances, or the workplace, may be described as Islamists." [32]

Liberalism
This section describes the ideology of liberalism. Liberalism values individual freedom, open economic
systems, and democracy. As you read this section, consider how the ideology of liberalism compares to
socialism or fascism. What sets liberalism apart? Also, pay close attention to the distinction between
classical liberalism and modern liberalism.
Liberalism is a broad political ideology or worldview founded on the ideas of liberty and equality.
 
Learning Objective
Discuss the central tenets and principles of liberalism as a political philosophy
 
Key Points

 Liberalism espouses a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles,
and can encompass ideas such as free and fair elections, free trade, private property, capitalism,
constitutionalism, liberal democracy, free press, and the free exercise of religion.
 Liberalism first became a powerful force in the Age of Enlightenment, rejecting several foundational
assumptions that dominated most earlier theories of government, such as nobility, established
religion, absolute monarchy, and the Divine Right of Kings.
 John Locke, credited with the creation of liberalism, argued that the rule of law should replace both
tradition and absolutism in government; that rulers were subject to the consent of the governed;
and that individuals had a fundamental right to life, liberty, and property.
 With the rise of social liberalism in Europe and North America, the meaning of "liberalism" began
to diverge. In the U.S., ideas of individualism and laissez-faire economics previously associated with
classical liberalism became the basis for right wing libertarian thought.
 The revolutionaries in the American and France used liberal philosophy to justify the armed
overthrow of what they saw as tyrannical rule. The nineteenth century saw governments
established around liberalist political ideology in nations across Europe, Latin America, and North
America.
 
Terms

 John Locke: Widely known as the Father of Classical Liberalism, he was an English philosopher and
physician regarded as one of the most influential of Enlightenment thinkers. His contributions to
 classical republicanism and liberal theory are reflected in the United States Declaration of
Independence.
 Liberal internationalism: A foreign policy doctrine that argues that liberal states should intervene in
other sovereign states in order to pursue liberal objectives.
 
Sources of Liberal Thought
Liberalism, from the Latin liberalis, is a broad political ideology or worldview founded on the ideas of
liberty and equality. Liberalism espouses a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these
principles, and can encompass ideas such as free and fair elections, free trade, private property, capitalism,
constitutionalism, liberal democracy, free press, and the free exercise of religion.
Liberalism first became a powerful force during the Enlightenment , when it became popular among
philosophers and economists in the Western world. Liberalism rejected the notions, common at the time,
of hereditary privilege, state religion, absolute monarchy, and the Divine Right of Kings. The early liberal
thinker John Locke, who is often credited with the creation of liberalism as a distinct philosophical
tradition, employed the concept of natural rights and the social contract to argue that the rule of law
should replace both tradition and absolutism in government; that rulers were subject to the consent of the
governed; and that private individuals had a fundamental right to life, liberty, and property.
 
Liberalism and Revolution
The revolutionaries in the American and France used liberal philosophy to justify the armed overthrow of
what they saw as tyrannical rule. The nineteenth century saw governments established around liberalist
political ideology in nations across Europe, Latin America, and North America. Liberalist ideas spread even
further in the twentieth century, when liberal democracies were on the winning side in both World Wars I
and II, and when liberalism survived major ideological challenges from fascism and communism. Today,
liberalism remains a political force with varying degrees of power and influence in many countries.
 
Classical vs. Modern Liberalism
Classical liberalism is a political philosophy and ideology belonging to liberalism in which primary
emphasis is placed on securing the freedom of the individual by limiting the power of the government.
The philosophy emerged as a response to the Industrial Revolution and urbanization in the 19th century in
Europe and the United States. It advocates civil liberties with a limited government under the rule of law,
private property, and belief in laissez-faire economic policy.
Both modern American conservatism and social liberalism split from Classical Liberalism in the early 20th
century. At that time conservatives adopted the Classic Liberal beliefs in protecting economic civil liberties.
Conversely social liberals adopted the Classical Liberal belief in defending social civil liberties. Neither
ideology adopted the pure Classical Liberal belief that government exists to protect both social &
economic civil liberties. Conservatism shares an ideological agreement on limited government in the area
of preventing government restriction against economic civil liberties as embodied in the ability of people
to sell their goods, services or labor to anyone they choose free from restriction except in rare cases where
society's general welfare is at stake.
While many modern scholars argue that no particularly meaningful distinction between classical and
modern liberalism exists, others disagree. According to William J. Novak, liberalism in the United States
shifted in the late 19th and early 20th century from classical liberalism (endorsing laissez-faire economics
and constitutionalism) to "democratic social-welfarism" (endorsing such government involvement as seen
in the New Deal). This shift included qualified acceptance of government intervention in the economy and
the collective right to equality in economic dealings. These theories came to be termed "liberal socialism",
which is related with social democracy in Europe. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, "In the United
States, liberalism is associated with the welfare-state policies of the New Deal program of the Democratic
administration of Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt, whereas in Europe it is more commonly associated with a
commitment to limited government and laissez-faire economic policies". Consequently in the U.S., the
ideas of individualism and laissez-faire economics previously associated with classical liberalism, became
the basis for the emerging school of right wing libertarian thought.
Liberalism and Socialism
Some confusion remains about the relationship between social liberalism and socialism, despite the fact
that many variants of socialism distinguish themselves markedly from liberalism by opposing capitalism,
hierarchy and private property. Socialism formed as a group of related yet divergent ideologies in the 19th
century such as Christian socialism, Communism and Social Anarchism. These ideologies — as with
liberalism — fractured into several major and minor movements in the following decades. Marx rejected
the foundational aspects of liberal theory, hoping to destroy both the state and the liberal distinction
between society and the individual while fusing the two into a collective whole designed to overthrow the
developing capitalist order of the 19th century.
Social democracy, an ideology advocating progressive reform of capitalism, emerged in the 20th century
and was influenced by socialism. Yet unlike socialism, it was not collectivist nor anti-capitalist. It was not
against the state; rather it was broadly defined as a project that aims to correct, through government
reformism, what it regards as the intrinsic defects of capitalism by reducing inequalities. Several
commentators have noted strong similarities between social liberalism and social democracy, with one
political scientist even calling American liberalism "bootleg social democracy".
 
American Tradition and Liberal Heritage
Many fundamental elements of modern society have liberal roots. The early waves of liberalism
popularized economic individualism while expanding constitutional government and parliamentary
authority. One of the greatest liberal triumphs involved replacing the capricious nature of royalist and
absolutist rule with a decision-making process encoded in written law. Liberals sought and established a
constitutional order that prized important individual freedoms, such as the freedoms of speech and
association, an independent judiciary and public trial by jury, and the abolition of aristocratic privileges.
These sweeping changes in political authority marked the modern transition from absolutism to
constitutional rule.
Later waves of liberal thought were strongly influenced by the need to expand civil rights. In the 1960s
and 1970s, feminism in the United States was advanced in large part by liberal feminist organizations.
Many liberals also have advocated for racial equality, and the civil rights movement in the United States
during the 1960s strongly highlighted the liberal crusade for equal rights.

Classical Liberalism
According to this article, classical liberalism advocates for a government that only:

 protects against foreign invaders;

 protects citizens from being wronged by other citizens; and
 provides public institutions/works that the private sector cannot profitably provide.
How does this compare to the roles of government as outlined by the ideologies we've read about so far?
Classical liberalism is a political philosophy committed to limited government, the rule of law, individual
liberties, and free markets.
 
Learning Objective
Define classical liberalism
 
Key Points

 Classical liberalism developed over the course of the 18th and 19th century in the United States
and Britain, drawing upon Enlightenment sources from the 1700s and 1800s.
 Classical liberalism was an intellectual response to the Industrial Revolution and the problems
associated with urbanization.
 Among individual liberties, classical liberalism put particular emphasis on property rights.
 Classical liberalism was based on a theory of human nature that saw humans as egoistic and
motivated by self-interest.
 Classical liberals argue that society is best constituted when it allows individuals to freely pursue
their self-interest.
 Classical liberals believed that free international trade would lead to peaceful, harmonious
international order.
 
Terms

 Classical liberalism: A political ideology that advocates limited government, constitutionalism, rule
of law, due process, free markets, and individual liberties including freedom of religion, speech,
press, and assembly.
 Laissez-faire: An economic environment in which transactions between private parties are free from
tariffs, government subsidies, and enforced monopolies, with only enough government regulations
sufficient to protect property rights against theft and aggression.
 Free market: Any economic system in which trade is unregulated; an economic system free from
government intervention.
 
Classical Liberalism and the Notion of Freedom
Classical liberalism is a philosophy committed to the ideals of limited government, constitutionalism, rule
of law, due process, and liberty of individuals. These liberties include freedom of religion, speech, press,
assembly, and free markets. Classical liberalism developed over the course of the 1800s in the United
States and Britain and drew upon Enlightenment sources (particularly the works of John Locke, Thomas
Hobbes, and Adam Smith). It was an intellectual response to the Industrial Revolution and the problems
associated with urbanization.
 
Core Principles
Human Nature
Classical liberalism places a particular emphasis on the sovereignty of the individual and considers
property rights an essential component of individual liberty. Later in 19th-century political theory, this
would encourage "laissez-faire" public policy that would not heavily interfere in commerce or industry.
Most classical liberals argued that humans are calculating, egoistic creatures, motivated solely by pain and
pleasure; humans make decisions intended to maximize pleasure and minimize pain, while in the absence
of pain or pleasure, they become inert. Hence, classical liberals believed that individuals should be free to
pursue their self-interest without societal control or restraint. 
Classical liberalism determined that individuals should be free to obtain work from the highest-paying
employers. In a free market, labor and capital would therefore receive the greatest possible reward, while
production would be organized efficiently to meet consumer demand. Classical liberals also saw poor
urban conditions as inevitable, and therefore opposed any income or wealth redistribution.
The Role of Government
Classical liberals agreed with Adam Smith that government had only three essential functions: protection
against foreign invaders, protection of citizens from wrongs committed against them by other citizens,
and the building and maintaining of public institutions and public works that the private sector could not
profitably provide. Classical liberals extended protection of the country to protection of overseas markets
through armed intervention. Protection of individuals against wrongs normally meant protection of private
property. Public works included a stable currency; standard weights and measures; support of roads,
canals, harbors, and railways; and postal and other communications services that facilitated urban and
industrial development.
World Peace
Additionally, classical liberals believed that unfettered commerce with other nations would eventually
eliminate war and imperial conflicts. Through peaceful, harmonious trade relationships established by
private merchants and companies without government interference, mutual national interest and
prosperity would derive from commercial exchange rather than imperial territorial acquisition (which
liberals saw as the root of all wars). World peace, for classical liberals, was a real possibility if national
governments would allow interdependent global commercial relationships to form.

American Liberalism
Read this section. U.S. Democratic and Republican Parties both adhere to a derivation of classical liberal
ideals. The words "liberal" and "conservative" have come to represent a different set of values in modern
times. American, or modern, liberalism equates with the "left of center", or the Democratic Party in the
United States. Modern liberals advocate for more government spending and oversight, stronger welfare
programs, and liberal social policies.

Liberalism
PLEASE NOTE: This book is currently in draft form; material is not final.
LEA RN I N G OB J ECTI VES
In this section, you will learn:

1. What liberalism is.

2. The different types of liberalism.
3. The difference between American liberalism and American conservatism.
Classical Liberalism
Liberalism can be a confusing term because it can mean more than one thing. Classical
liberalism describes a major direction in western politics, of which American liberalism is a subset.
Despite some wild-eyed conservatives accusing President Obama of being a socialist (because that’s
still dirty word in American politics), both Democrats and Republicans in the United States fall under
the umbrella of classical liberalism. In the big picture, U.S. politics are fairly homogenous.

Classical liberalism has two prominent features:

1. A reliance on markets for economic decision making.

 2. A reliance on democratic institutions for political decision making.

A reliance on markets means that people get to vote with their dollars, pounds, rupees or euros on
what they want to buy and how much they’re willing to pay for it. A market is all the producers, sellers
and buyers of any product or service, such as the market for smart phones. In classical liberalism, we
tend to try to leave markets alone to function as consumers and businesses see fit. So instead of the
state deciding what gets produced and how much it will cost, the market decides through millions of
individual transactions. Individuals can own and invest in businesses; businesses have some ability to
choose what to make and what to charge for it. We call this economic system capitalism (a term first
used, perhaps, by the English novelist William Makepeace Thackeray in 1852, although the term
“capitalist” appears to be older).

Capitalism aims to promote maximum wealth by letting people try, fail and succeed in business. The
Scottish philosopher Adam Smith (who didn’t call it capitalism) described this in his work An Inquiry
into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, published in 1776. Smith (1723-1790) noted that
just letting people do what they wanted to do produced more wealth, more efficiently, than did the
prevailing economic theory of the time, mercantilism.

Mercantilism was a very Euro-centric theory (though it has since been applied elsewhere). It argued
that the nation with the most gold was the best off. It also argued that nations should maximize
imports and minimize exports, while maintaining overseas colonies to serve as sources of raw
materials and markets for finished goods. This was the kind of policy that helped spur the American
revolution, by limiting the British American colonists’ ability to make what they wanted and trade
with whom they wanted to. Ironically, perhaps, it is the very strategy that allowed the “Asian tigers”—
Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore—to grow so much in the post-World War II
era—limit imports, maximize exports, and build up domestic industries so they can compete
effectively on world markets.

Adam Smith’s book is long enough, and few enough people have read it, that it gets used to justify
almost any sort of behavior. To our eyes, he didn’t understand so much about how prices are set,
particularly rents on property (he wrote, more or less, that it was about costs). But he did seem to
grasp some ideas that are still with us today. In perhaps his most famous (and in some ways, most
unfortunate) phrase, Smith wrote that if people simply tried to take care of themselves (make money),
they would in fact make others better off (as if, he wrote, guided by “an invisible hand”—a verbal
construction that makes it seem as if economics was some mystical science. It isn’t). What Smith was
really saying was that by working hard, saving, investing and consuming, people in a market economy
generate more wealth, which means they are able to take care of themselves and their families, in the
process of which they spend some of that wealth which generates more economic activity elsewhere in
society. What is sometimes overlooked in Smith’s work is that he understood, explicitly, that people
are often trying to rig the market to limit competition, raise prices, and increase profits. Smith
reserved special scorn for the East India Company, the government-sponsored monopoly that was in
the process of robbing and conquering India and the Indians. In particular, Smith criticizes the
company for how bad it was treating the Indians, who were in the process of being excluded from
meaningful participation in the economic and political life of their country. Despite (and perhaps
because of) its monopoly status—it had no legal competitors for British trade with India—it was a
terribly inefficient business, so much so that the British government had to repeatedly bail it out. This
led the Brits to dump tea on the North American market, which led to the Boston Tea Party and the
American revolution.

The British economy of the time still featured a lot of medieval laws restricting trade and the
movement of workers, both of which kept prices high, supply down and the wages of most people
lower than they would be otherwise. Smith understood that capitalism would generate more wealth
for more people, as long as markets could be kept free of restraints.

The other half of the classical liberal prescription is a reliance on democratic institutions: In classical
liberalism, political decisions are made in some way by people casting votes. States decide who is a
qualified citizen, and those people get to vote in free elections. The state may set rules on who can run
for office, such as a minimum age requirement, but if you reach that age, the state cannot decide that
you can’t run. Candidates don’t have to be approved by the government before they can seek office. In
most if not all instances, citizens elect people who make decisions on their behalf. This kind of
government is called a republic.

As with every approach to government and the economy, classical liberalism has its share of strengths
and weaknesses. By allowing people to spend and invest as they wish, and by depending on open
elections, it provides a higher degree of individual liberty than do some alternatives. It creates
opportunity for participating in the economic and political life of a country. By relying on markets to
make economic decisions, it tends to produce more wealth, more efficiently (at lower cost). Because it
depends upon elections for political decision making, it gives citizens an outlet for their discontent,
and allows them to make changes to law and policy.

On the other hand, while classical liberalism tends to produce more wealth, it may distribute that
wealth unevenly. An uneven distribution of wealth can lead to wealthy people dominating the political
system. They have more money to contribute to election campaigns, and more resources with which
to lobby the government. The U.S. Senate is pretty much a millionaires’ club now, for example, and
while it’s not impossible for a very wealthy person to understand the concerns of someone who is
poor, it may also be harder for them to understand the concerns of the less wealthy. Because the
creation of wealth often gets tied to the broader concept of liberty, the system may have a difficult
time dealing with problems generated by market activity, such as pollution. State controls on
pollution, because they cost money, lower profits, and, under this equation, loss of profits gets
portrayed as a loss of liberty.

Conversely, if the specific political system is more inclusive—gives everybody a real voice—it may not
be very efficient in decision making, and may in fact be slow to respond to people’s needs. So, for
example, in the United States, the financing of the Medicare system faces problems down the road.
Although it’s a train wreck that everybody can see coming, the political system has so far been unable
to deal with it because, in part, because of pressure from so many interest groups. Nobody wants to
pay higher taxes to pay for the system, but nobody wants to reduce benefits in any way. While the
political system may eventually deal with this, it might be better to deal with it sooner rather than
later.

The form of the republic is not terribly important in considering how liberal it is. So it doesn’t matter
of the republic is a constitutional monarchy, a parliamentary democracy, or has an American-style
division of power between president and the Congress. What matters is the availability of free and fair
elections. Scholars classify some republics as “illiberal democracies,” because although there are
elections, they don’t appear to be completely free and fair, such as in Russia. They may have either a
parliamentary or a president/legislative government, but the system does not always work as
advertised. Singapore is sometimes called an illiberal state, because of the dominance of a single party
and restrictions on civil liberties. Mexico was an illiberal democracy for much of the 20th century,
when the Institutional Revolutionary Party won every national election, regardless of the actual vote
count.

American Liberalism
Classical liberalism isn’t what many people in the United States mean when they say “liberal,”
however. American liberalism is a particular flavor of classical liberalism. Originally, it was a political
philosophy that argued that government had a positive role to play in society. This movement and its
cousin, progressivism, grew out of the reaction to the excesses of late 19th and early 20th century
capitalism—no protections for workers such as a 40-hour week and mandatory overtime, child
workers chained to factory floors, and very few health, safety and environmental laws.

Progressives (which some liberals have begun to call themselves, after American conservatives
managed to turn “liberal” into a dirty word) saw a world that was dominated by big business and by
big city political machines. Big business limited competition and raised prices through the creation of
trusts, conglomerations of firms in the same market so that one really big company dominated the
entire market. Big city political machines dominated urban politics for much of the first half of the
20th century, uniting blocks of immigrant voters behind regimes that controlled much of what
happened in large cities. While they empowered the powerless, who had been excluded from the
political spoils of city life by business interests, they tended to exclude all the people who didn’t agree
with them. So the Progressives pushed for electoral reforms such as non-partisan elections (in which
candidates don’t run on the basis of party), open primary elections (previously dominated by party
organizations, who thus controlled which candidates got on the ballot), and a stronger role for
government in economic management (such as breaking up the trusts).

American liberalism can find its roots in the Progressive movement, but it really took flower after the
Great Depression. Private charity was completely overwhelmed by the high level of unemployment,
and so American politics turned heavily toward an active role for government in economic and
eventually personal affairs. Liberals fought for more protections for workers and unions, a broader
social safety net for the poor and unemployed, and health, safety and environmental regulations. As
always, this approach to government has both costs and benefits—fewer people starving to death
(which sometimes happened before welfare and unemployment compensation), versus higher taxes
and higher costs for businesses and consumers, driven in party by complying with more regulations.
American Conservatism
American conservativism, like American liberalism, is a subset of classical liberalism, though perhaps
a tiny big closer to the ideal. American conservatives have tended to argue for less government
involvement in the economy, a movement that also grew out of the Great Depression. As the size and
scope of U.S. government grew in the post-World War II era, conservatives began to argue that taxes
and regulation were hampering economic growth and actually lowering people’s standards of living.
Conservatives argue that people should be able to make their own choices about where to spend their
money, pointing out that taxes to support government programs effectively make those choices for
you. They also argue that too wide a social safety net discourages people from working and taking care
of themselves.

Traditional American conservatives tend to favor lower taxes, a balanced federal budget and less
regulation of the economic system. In more recent years, however, a subset of American conservatives
have become more concerned about issue such as abortion rights and gay marriage, topics that
traditional conservatives might have avoided. For some conservatives, less government means less
government. Others, including some who might call themselves Christian conservatives because of
their faith, support social legislation to ban some kinds of behavior and encourage others. Conversely,
so while American liberals have usually tended to advocate more government involvement in
economic life, they now tend to favor less government involvement in private life. Religious
conservatives tend to favor less government involvement in economic life, but more government
involvement in private life. And liberals and religious conservatives sometimes find common ground
over environmental issues. As the American writer Charles Dudley Warner said in the 1800s, “Politics
makes strange bedfellows.”
Realistically, we shouldn’t be surprised that people hold opinions (more government in some areas,
less in others) that don’t always appear to be logically consistent. When we consider the
liberal/conservative dichotomy, it’s difficult to draw a clean line. Many of us have issues on which we
are conservative, and others on which we may be liberal. For example, conservatives are for less
government involvement in the economy, and yet southern conservative members of Congress
consistently vote for subsidies for tobacco farmers.
Populism
While we’re on the subject of American political isms, we shouldn’t forget populism. Populism is not
so much an ideology as an approach to politics. At its best, populism displays a genuine concern for
citizens whose rights and needs have not been considered. At its worst, populists can be as oppressive
as the people they replaced. A lot of the time, populism often displays a sort of talk-radio level of
understanding of complicated issues (which is to say, not very much. Talk radio hosts on the left and
on the right often seem to oversimplify complex topics, without always grasping the difficult choices
behind them).

Generally speaking, populists make an appeal to the common person, and claim to represent their
interests, as opposed to the interests of the rich and powerful. American political figures such Huey
Long, Ralph Nader, Ross Perot and Pat Buchanan were or are populists. Venezuelan President Hugo
Chavez, who claims to represent the common people of his country but who has also enriched his
family while in office, is a populist. Populism is a common theme in American politics; most American
political candidates attempt to paint themselves as ordinary folks just like you and me. A movie such
as Dave, a 1993 film starring Kevin Kline, plays on the American attraction to populism. Kline plays
an average, well-meaning guy who’s a dead-ringer for the president. When called upon to fill in for the
incapacitated (and not very nice) president, Dave, among other things, manages to balance the federal
budget with the help of his accountant over sandwiches one night. (Seriously, if it were that easy,
wouldn’t it have happened by now?) But the theme is common throughout American politics—if only
honest, hard-working people of good moral standing could make it into office, all of our problems
would go away.

Populists are fond of bashing big business, and/or big government; of promising to stand up for the
little guy; and of vowing to save the nation from its certain doom. The problem with populists is that
in those rare occasions where they get elected to major office, they tend to run things in the very way
they have criticized the establish order about—high-handed, unresponsive, with surprisingly little real
concern for what might best serve the state as a whole. When Huey Long became governor of
Louisiana in 1928, he raised taxes on oil companies, got free textbooks for school children, and got
roads and bridges built for a state that desperately needed them. However, he also forced state
employees to donate 10 percent of their wages to his re-election fund, doled out highway contracts
based on who kicked back the most money, harshly punished political opponents, and, by the time he
was assassinated in 1935, had become the virtual dictator of the state. So while populists, like most
people in politics, mean well, they don’t always perform well.
Libertarianism
Libertarians believe in the least amount of government possible—national defense, police and fire,
and not much else. (I’m over-simplifying here, but not by much). True libertarians are not at all
concerned with social issues, as they don’t see that as government’s job. Hard-core American
libertarians tend to oppose a global role for the U.S. beyond trade and commerce, leaving most
decisions about everything up to private citizens.

Libertarianism grew out of the reaction to Soviet-style communism in the post-World War II era.
Soviet-style communism was not noted for its commitment to liberty of any kind, and a number of
writers, such as the novelist Ayn Rand, and economists such as Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek
and Milton Friedman pushed for hands-off approach for the state.

Libertarianism offers considerable freedom of choice on a range of issues, and this is its chief virtue.
By not encumbering the economy with higher taxes and regulations, it may promote economic
growth. And the idea of maximum personal freedom is often very appealing. But to argue that if less
government is better, then nearly no government is ideal is a difficult assertion. For one thing, the
government of the United States (and parts of Europe) in the late 19th and early 20th centuries was
very much like the libertarian prescription. Government was incapable of dealing with economic
downturns, and people suffered as a result. Workplace, food and transportation safety issues were not
addressed, and the concentration of economic power tended to prod government to favor the wealthy
even more. The first anti-trust laws, passed to break up business monopolies, were used instead to
prevent workers from forming unions. You might think that’s a good idea or a bad one, but if
businesses can organize, why not workers? (You will, as always, have to make up your own mind on
questions such as this.)

Libertarianism doesn’t seem designed to deal with environmental issues in particular, as markets by
themselves aren’t always very good at dealing with problems such as over-fishing and air and water
pollution. Libertarians would argue that such questions really are a matter of property rights, as in if
what you do impacts the value of my property, then I have a valid complaint. However, that presumes
that not much that happens on my property will impact your property, a notion that some ecological
scientists would probably take issue with.

Libertarianism appeals to some people in current American politics, perhaps because when
government does not seem to be performing well, the idea of less government sounds like a potential
improvement. Many Americans are sympathetic to the notion of keeping the government from telling
people how they should live. We might call that small “l” libertarianism, as opposed to those who
belong to or support the Libertarian Party, which seeks to win elections to put their principles into
practice. Some citizens probably also find appeal in the notion of a smaller government in hopes that
would mean lower taxes.

It’s an open question whether libertarianism could be made to work better than it did in the 1800s.
Some people would tell you that it worked just fine; others point to the problems of the era as
evidence that it didn’t work all that well. A lot of services that government provides would go away,
and how much infrastructure investment—roads, bridges, port facilities, public education—would
happen under a libertarian government is not clear. Obviously, I’m skeptical of this ideology, though
you may not be (and that’s OK). Libertarian students will sometimes respond to my criticisms of
libertarianism by saying “But Any Rand said…” to which I reply, “For an economist, Ayn Rand was a
helluva novelist.” Suffice it to say that libertarianism, like most ideologies, has its strengths and
weaknesses.
KEY TA KEA WA YS
 Classical liberalism is currently the dominant political and economic philosophy in the world.
 Classical liberalism and its variants all have strengths and weaknesses.

Conservativism
While classical liberalism emphasizes the sovereignty of the individual, classical conservatism emphasizes
the importance of continuity for the preservation of order. Classical liberalism's end goal is freedom, while
classical conservatism's end goal is stability. Classical conservatives also seek to maintain a society based
on traditional values and the existing social hierarchy, since change can cause instability.

American Conservatism
Read the section on American Conservatism. As mentioned, modern or American conservatism can
actually more accurately be characterized as a form of classical liberalism. Modern or American
conservatives are represented by the "right of center", or Republican Party. American conservatives seek
less government involvement in the economy and are more interested in preserving individual freedom
than actively promoting economic equality.
American Conservatism
American conservativism, like American liberalism, is a subset of classical liberalism, though perhaps a tiny big
closer to the ideal. American conservatives have tended to argue for less government involvement in the economy, a
movement that also grew out of the Great Depression. As the size and scope of U.S. government grew in the post-
World War II era, conservatives began to argue that taxes and regulation were hampering economic growth and
actually lowering people’s standards of living. Conservatives argue that people should be able to make their own
choices about where to spend their money, pointing out that taxes to support government programs effectively make
those choices for you. They also argue that too wide a social safety net discourages people from working and taking
care of themselves.

Traditional American conservatives tend to favor lower taxes, a balanced federal budget and less regulation of the
economic system. In more recent years, however, a subset of American conservatives have become more concerned
about issue such as abortion rights and gay marriage, topics that traditional conservatives might have avoided. For
some conservatives, less government means less government. Others, including some who might call themselves
Christian conservatives because of their faith, support social legislation to ban some kinds of behavior and
encourage others. Conversely, so while American liberals have usually tended to advocate more government
involvement in economic life, they now tend to favor less government involvement in private life. Religious
conservatives tend to favor less government involvement in economic life, but more government involvement in
private life. And liberals and religious conservatives sometimes find common ground over environmental issues. As
the American writer Charles Dudley Warner said in the 1800s, “Politics makes strange bedfellows.”

Realistically, we shouldn’t be surprised that people hold opinions (more government in some areas, less in others)
that don’t always appear to be logically consistent. When we consider the liberal/conservative dichotomy, it’s
difficult to draw a clean line. Many of us have issues on which we are conservative, and others on which we may be
liberal. For example, conservatives are for less government involvement in the economy, and yet southern
conservative members of Congress consistently vote for subsidies for tobacco farmers.

Feminism
Please read the introductory paragraphs, as well as the sections titled, "History" and "Societal Impact".
According to this article, feminism can be defined as "the acting, speaking, writing, and advocating on
behalf of women's issues and right sand identifying injustice to females in the social status quo". As you've
seen, ideologies discuss human nature, the role of government, freedom versus equality, and other critical
issues. As an ideology, feminism seeks to introduce gender into these conversations.
READ ABOUT FEMINISM IN WIKIPEDIA

Feminism and Sexism

This article outlines the primary feminist movements in the United States. Pay close attention to the
description of liberal feminism, socialist feminism, radical feminism, and multicultural feminism. How do
these feminist-based ideological approaches suggest we should structure government and political life?

Feminism and Sexism

LEA RN I N G OB J ECTI VES
1. Define feminism, sexism, and patriarchy.
2. Discuss evidence for a decline in sexism.

In the national General Social Survey (GSS), slightly more than one-third of the public agrees with this statement:
“It is much better for everyone involved if the man is the achiever outside the home and the woman takes care of the
home and family.” Do you agree or disagree with this statement? If you are like the majority of college students, you
disagree.

Today a lot of women, and some men, will say, “I’m not a feminist, but…,” and then go on to add that they hold
certain beliefs about women’s equality and traditional gender roles that actually fall into a feminist framework. Their
reluctance to self-identify as feminists underscores the negative image that feminists and feminism have but also
suggests that the actual meaning of feminism may be unclear.

Feminism and sexism are generally two sides of the same coin. Feminism refers to the belief that women and men
should have equal opportunities in economic, political, and social life, while sexism refers to a belief in traditional
gender role stereotypes and in the inherent inequality between men and women. Sexism thus parallels the concept of
racial and ethnic prejudice discussed in Chapter 3 "Racial and Ethnic Inequality". Women and people of color are
both said, for biological and/or cultural reasons, to lack certain qualities for success in today’s world.

Two feminist movements in US history have greatly advanced the cause of women’s equality and changed views
about gender. The first began during the abolitionist period, when abolitionists such as Susan B. Anthony, Lucretia
Mott, and Elizabeth Cady Stanton began to see similarities between slavery and the oppression of women. This new
women’s movement focused on many issues but especially the right to vote, which women won in 1920. The second
major feminist movement began in the late 1960s, as women active in the Southern civil rights movement turned
their attention to women’s rights, and it is still active today. This movement has profoundly changed public thinking
and social and economic institutions, but, as we will soon see, much gender inequality remains.

Several varieties of feminism exist. Although they all share the basic idea that women and men should be equal in
their opportunities in all spheres of life, they differ in other ways (Hannam, 2012).Hannam, J. (2012). Feminism.
New York, NY: Pearson Longman. Liberal feminism believes that the equality of women can be achieved within our
existing society by passing laws and reforming social, economic, and political institutions. In contrast, socialist
feminism blames capitalism for women’s inequality and says that true gender equality can result only if fundamental
changes in social institutions, and even a socialist revolution, are achieved. Radical feminism, on the other hand,
says that patriarchy (male domination) lies at the root of women’s oppression and that women are oppressed even in
noncapitalist societies. Patriarchy itself must be abolished, they say, if women are to become equal to men.
Finally, multicultural feminism emphasizes that women of color are oppressed not only because of their gender but
also because of their race and class. They thus face a triple burden that goes beyond their gender. By focusing their
attention on women of color in the United States and other nations, multicultural feminists remind us that the lives
of these women differ in many ways from those of the middle-class women who historically have led US feminist
movements.
The Growth of Feminism and the Decline of Sexism
What evidence is there for the impact of the contemporary women’s movement on public thinking?
The GSS, the Gallup poll, and other national surveys show that the public has moved away from
traditional views of gender toward more modern ones. Another way of saying this is that the public
has moved from sexism toward feminism.
To illustrate this, let’s return to the GSS statement that it is much better for the man to achieve
outside the home and for the woman to take care of home and family. Figure 4.2 "Change in
Acceptance of Traditional Gender Roles in the Family, 1977–2010" shows that agreement with this
statement dropped sharply during the 1970s and 1980s before leveling off afterward to slightly more
than one-third of the public.
KEY TA KEA WA YS
 Feminism refers to the belief that women and men should have equal opportunities in economic, political,
and social life, while sexism refers to a belief in traditional gender role stereotypes and in the inherent inequality
between men and women.
 Sexist beliefs have declined in the United States since the early 1970s.

Environmentalism
Read the introductory paragraphs and the sections entitled "Definitions" and "Environmental Movement".
According to this article, environmentalism "is a broad philosophy, ideology, and social movement
regarding concerns for environmental protection and improvement of the health of the environment". To
environmentalists, one of the primary goals of government should be to encourage development that is
sustainable. How does this compare to the goals of modern liberals, conservatives, or feminists?
Environmentalism or environmental rights is a broad philosophy, ideology, and social movement regarding
concerns for environmental protection and improvement of the health of the environment, particularly as the
measure for this health seeks to incorporate the impact of changes to the environment on humans, animals, plants
and non-living matter. While environmentalism focuses more on the environmental and nature-related aspects
of green ideology and politics, ecology combines the ideology of social ecology and environmentalism.
Environmentalism denotes a social movement that seeks to influence the political process by lobbying, activism, and
education in order to protect natural resources and ecosystems.
An environmentalist is a person who may speak out about our natural environment and the sustainable
management of its resources through changes in public policy or individual behaviour. This may include supporting
practices such as informed consumption, conservation initiatives, investment in renewable resources, improved
efficiencies in the materials economy, transitioning to new accounting paradigms such as Ecological economics,
renewing and revitalizing our connections with non-human life or even opting to have one less child to reduce
consumption and pressure on resources.
In various ways (for example, grassroots activism and protests), environmentalists and environmental
organisations seek to give the natural world a stronger voice in human affairs.[4]
In general terms, environmentalists advocate the sustainable management of resources, and the protection (and
restoration, when necessary) of the natural environment through changes in public policy and individual behaviour.
In its recognition of humanity as a participant in ecosystems, the movement is centered around ecology, health,
and human rights.

Environmental movement[edit]
Main article: Environmental movement

Before flue-gas desulfurization was installed, the air-polluting emissions from this power plant in New Mexico contained
excessive amounts of sulfur dioxide.
The environmental movement (a term that sometimes includes the conservation and green movements) is a diverse
scientific, social, and political movement. Though the movement is represented by a range of organisations,
because of the inclusion of environmentalism in the classroom curriculum, [56][57] the environmental movement has a
younger demographic than is common in other social movements (see green seniors).
Environmentalism as a movement covers broad areas of institutional oppression, including for example:
consumption of ecosystems and natural resources into waste, dumping waste into disadvantaged communities, air
pollution, water pollution, weak infrastructure, exposure of organic life to toxins, mono-culture, anti-polythene drive
(jhola movement) and various other focuses. Because of these divisions, the environmental movement can be
categorized into these primary focuses: environmental science, environmental activism, environmental advocacy,
and environmental justice.[58]
Free market environmentalism[edit]
Main article: Free-market environmentalism
Free market environmentalism is a theory that argues that the free market, property rights, and tort law provide the
best tools to preserve the health and sustainability of the environment. It considers environmental stewardship to be
natural, as well as the expulsion of polluters and other aggressors through individual and class action.
Evangelical environmentalism[edit]
Main article: Evangelical environmentalism
Evangelical environmentalism is an environmental movement in the United States of America in which
some Evangelicals have emphasized biblical mandates concerning humanity's role as steward and subsequent
responsibility for the care taking of Creation. While the movement has focused on different environmental issues, it
is best known for its focus of addressing climate action from a biblically grounded theological perspective. This
movement is controversial among some non-Christian environmentalists due to its rooting in a specific religion.
Preservation and conservation[edit]
Main articles: Conservation movement and Conservation in the United States
Environmental preservation in the United States and other parts of the world, including Australia, is viewed as the
setting aside of natural resources to prevent damage caused by contact with humans or by certain human activities,
such as logging, mining, hunting, and fishing, often to replace them with new human activities such as tourism and
recreation.[59] Regulations and laws may be enacted for the preservation of natural resources.

What the US Can Learn from Germany's Stunning Environmental

Movement
This article compares environmentalism in the US to environmentalism in Europe. Like environmentalism,
most ideologies take different forms in different countries. In this article, pay close attention to the
continued mention of sustainability, which is a critical feature of environmentalism.
While the United States' congressional machinery was busy shoveling sugar into its own gas tank last
month, politicians in Germany pressed forward on their ambitious drive for sustainability. Boosted by a
fresh mandate in the September elections, German leaders pressed on with their country's "Energy
Transformation", a campaign designed to ignite a renewables revolution and slash greenhouse gases 80
percent by 2050. As Germany begins powering down its coal plants and nuclear reactors one by one, solar
stations and windmills are appearing around the country by the tens of thousands.
U.S. climate activists have been quick to valorize Germany's recent restructuring. Bill McKibben of 350.org
has called Germany the greenest industrial nation on earth. "Munich is north of Montreal!" he likes to
point out, emphasizing that the cold and cloudy capital of kraut is already capable of generating half of its
electricity from solar power – and that the rest of the world's sunnier, windier, and more seismically active
countries no longer have an excuse not to follow suit.
There is good reason for painting Germany as the poster child of the possible. As McKibben has noted, a
north European ski paradise isn't the likeliest of places to be spearheading a global energy revolution. In
1945, just two generations ago, Germany was more or less a country of rubble, its population decimated
by a genocidal war and its territory controlled by four increasingly discordant occupying forces. As
recently as 1990, it remained bifurcated by the Iron Curtain, a quarter of its population residing in a Soviet
police state with a dismal environmental record.
Mainstream U.S. commentators regularly chalk up German environmental efficiency to some innate
orderliness in the eternal German spirit. But make no mistake: The secret to Germany's sustainability
success has been the relentless and unapologetic application of populist direct action. From 1975, when
30,000 Germans caught the world's attention by storming and occupying a proposed nuclear plant for 10
months, to just this past October, when clean energy activists dumped coal outside the workspaces of
environmentally friendly politicians who had not gone far enough, confrontation has pumped the heart of
progress.
The roots of German environmentalism reach back well into the 19th century, when notions of
sustainability and conservation fueled dreams of nationalist expansion and military readiness, including
under Hitler's Nazi regime. Postwar environmentalism, however, has proved a tool of liberation. The
legions of students, grandmothers, social reformers, and full-time activists that formed the emerging
movement in the 1950s and 1960s aligned their collective agenda with values like decentralization, anti-
fascism, social equality, and multiculturalism.
By the mid-1970s, environmentalism had come into its own as West Germany's opposition movement par
excellence. Crafted in bold anti-establishment terms, it stood as a forceful challenge to the bureaucratic
impersonality and unrestricted capitalism of Western technocratic modernity. Employing a broad range of
tactics, activists painted a new picture of Germany's future. Where their fellow citizens saw chain-smoking
factories and drunken waterways, they imagined hilltop wind farms and rooftop solar panels. Rather than
of a graveyard of Chernobyls, they proposed a post-nuclear nation – a land whose fish would be edible
and where acid rain would be the stuff of legend.
With the formation of the national Green Party in 1980, environmentalists made their first foray into
federal politics, becoming powerful enough to enter a ruling coalition as early as 1998. Even in the
ecological wreck of Soviet East Germany, environmentalism became a surprisingly active sphere of political
participation, with over 100 such groups operating in the German Democratic Republic by the time of its
reunification with the West in 1990.
The truly impressive achievement of Germany's green agenda has been its ability to set the baseline for
national discourse. Today, an overwhelming majority of Germans support the creation of an economy run
on 100 percent renewable energy, with 84 percent believing this goal should be achieved "as quickly as
possible". Given a choice between driving to work and taking the bus, Germans will usually ride their bikes.
Even relatively low-income college students support high fees for long-distance travel ("Incentives to slim
your carbon footprint!"), and shoppers don't think twice about shelling out a few extra euros for a cart full
of organic goods packed in reusable sacks. At the parliamentary level, Germany's two largest parties
feature "Energy Transformation" as a centerpiece of their platforms.
Multi-partisan support has yielded hefty legislation. Strict eco-taxes keep fossil fuel prices high, while
sustainability subsidies generate innovative and affordable renewables. A generous "feed-in tariff" allows
households to produce and sell energy back to the grid while remaining competitive against traditional
power providers, a policy – designed to promote a decentralized and democratic economy – that has
allowed up to 50 percent of renewables to remain in individual hands. Already by 2005, national
greenhouse gas emissions declined 18 percent against 1990 levels. And Germans are projected to
overshoot their goals for 2020.
The green hue emanating from the Reichstag these days may give the impression that Germany's clean
tech triumph is being driven by top-down legislative politics. Certainly, federal laws provide the incentive
and enforcement mechanisms so vital to the cause. But as remarkable as these policies may be, they are
primarily the product of an ongoing people's campaign. As has so often been true of positive social
reform, Germany's politicians are the followers, not the leaders.
Perhaps the clearest example has been Germany's recent decision to give up nuclear power entirely. When
the 2011 radioactive meltdown in Fukushima, Japan, drew global attention to the risks of atomic energy,
German politicians announced an unprecedented about-face on their previously robust nuclear program.
Within two months of the Fukushima disaster, Germany had deactivated eight of its 17 nuclear plants and
vowed to phase out the remaining nine by 2022. While most analysts interpreted the decision as a short-
term ploy to curry domestic votes, in fact it signaled the successful culmination of a multi-decade
grassroots struggle.
Anti-nuclear protests, a staple of German environmentalism since the 1970s, had been heating up in the
years preceding Fukushima. In early 2010, a full year before the tragedy, 120,000 Germans had formed a
75-mile human chain between two active nuclear plants. The day after the tsunami hit, tens of thousands
formed a similar chain across parts of southern Germany. Within three days of the meltdown, some
110,000 demonstrators had staged nearly 500 events in as many towns across the country. By the end of
the month, massive rallies had engulfed Berlin, Hamburg, Cologne, and Munich. National uproar
continued as March led to April, and it was only in late May, after 25,000 protesters had converged on
their party headquarters, that Chancellor Merkel and her government agreed to a ban.
Admittedly, Germany's "Energy Transformation" program hasn't been all windmills and sunflowers.
Germans disagree over the operational details of their green transition. Rising energy prices have
prompted questions about governmental controls, coalition talks have splintered on how to prevent
further price hikes, and the absorption of the environmentalist platform into the political mainstream
appears to have mortally wounded the Green Party. But unlike in the United States – where politicians can
barely fit environmental issues into their talking points – these difficulties are symptoms of success.
The message for the United States couldn't be clearer. Sustained popular support for environmental
legislation can wield dramatic political power – and major change is sure to follow. As Germany has
demonstrated, even the most modern of nations can adopt the kind of sweeping, no-holds-barred
legislation our world needs if we are to escape climate calamity. Germany may not have all the answers,
but as it blazes a path away from fossil fuels and nuclear power, there will certainly be much for the United
States to listen to. And we won't even have to tap Angela Merkel's cellphone.

The Traditional Political Spectrum

We have covered a wide range of political ideologies, and in this final section, we will bring them all
together. As you read this article, look at the image of the traditional political spectrum. Where do you
think that you fall on this spectrum? Are you in the center, left-of-center, or right-of-center? Like many
people, you may have a hard time answering this question definitively, especially since political views are
multidimensional. Frequently, people are not wholly ideologically consistent, and they tend to fall on
different places on the spectrum depending on the specific social, economic, or political issue in question.
The traditional political spectrum models different political positions by placing them upon a left-right
geometric axis.
 
Learning Objective
Compare and contrast left-wing and right-wing political ideologies
 
Key Points

 Most long-standing spectra include a right wing and left wing, which originally referred to seating
arrangements in the 18th century French parliament.
  Originally, support for laissez-faire capitalism was expressed by politicians sitting on the left,
because these represented policies favorable to capitalists rather than to the aristocracy.
 As capitalist economies developed, the aristocracy became less relevant and were mostly replaced
by capitalist representatives.
 
Terms

 Laissez-faire: An economic environment in which transactions between private parties are free from
tariffs, government subsidies, and enforced monopolies with only enough government regulations
sufficient to protect property rights against theft and aggression.
 Affiliation: A club, society, or umbrella organization.
 Spectrum: A range; a continuous, infinite, one-dimensional set, possibly bounded by extremes.
 
Background
The traditional political spectrum is a way of modeling different political positions by placing them upon
one or more geometric axes symbolizing independent political dimensions. Most long-standing spectra
include a right and left, and according to the simplest left-right axis, communism and socialism are usually
regarded internationally as being on the left, opposite fascism and conservatism on the right.

Traditional political spectrum

The traditional left-right political spectrum
The terms "right" and "left" refer to political affiliations which
originated early in the French Revolutionary era of 1789–1796,
and referred originally to the seating arrangements in the
various legislative bodies of France. The aristocracy sat on the
right of the Speaker (traditionally the seat of honor) and the
commoners sat on the Left, hence the terms right-wing and left-wing politics.
 
Origins of the Political Spectrums
Originally, the defining point on the ideological spectrum was the ancien regime ("old order"). "The Right"
thus implied support for aristocratic or royal interests and the church, while "The Left" implied support for
republicanism, secularism, and civil liberties. Support for laissez-faire capitalism was expressed by
politicians sitting on the left, because these represented policies favorable to capitalists rather than to the
aristocracy, but outside of parliamentary politics, these views are often characterized as being on the right.
As capitalist economies developed, the aristocracy became less relevant and was mostly replaced by
capitalist representatives. The size of the working class increased as capitalism expanded and began to
find expression partly through trade unionist, socialist, anarchist, and communist politics, rather than
being confined to the capitalist policies expressed by the original left. This evolution has often pulled
parliamentary politicians away from laissez-faire economic policies, although this has happened to
different degrees in different countries.
Thus, the word "left" in American political parlance may refer to "liberalism" and be identified with the
Democratic Party, whereas in a country such as France these positions would be regarded as relatively
more right-wing, and "left" is more likely to refer to socialist positions rather than liberal ones.
 
Left-wing vs. Right-wing
In left-right politics, left-wing describes an outlook or specific position that accepts or supports social
equality, often in opposition to social hierarchy and social inequality. It typically involves a concern for
those in society who are perceived as disadvantaged relative to others and an assumption that there are
unjustified inequalities that need to be reduced or abolished. In left-right politics, left-wing describes an
outlook or specific position that accepts or supports social equality, often in opposition to social hierarchy
and social inequality. It typically involves a concern for those in society who are perceived as
disadvantaged relative to others and an assumption that there are unjustified inequalities that need to be
reduced or abolished.
In left-right politics, right-wing describes an outlook or specific position that accepts or supports social
hierarchy or social inequality. Social hierarchy and social inequality are viewed by those affiliated with the
Right as either inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable, whether it arises through traditional social
differences or from competition in market economies. It typically accepts or justifies this position on the
basis of natural law or tradition. Although the term 'right-wing' originally designated traditional
conservatives and reactionaries, it has also been used to describe neo-conservatives, nationalists, Christian
democrats, and classical liberals.
In modern parlance, left-right has acquired the added dimension of the balance of governmental power
and individual rights, wherein moving left increases the power of government and moving right the rights
of individuals. In this view, "reactionary" has the aspect of "anarchy". This introduces, or exposes, a
limitation in this simple binary spectrum, whereby social views of left-right, fascists, and totalitarian
systems are on the far right; whereas by a balance of government to individual power, fascists and
totalitarian systems are on the far left.

Political Ideology
This article provides a brief overview of the ideologies we have covered in this unit. Keep in mind, when it
describes "liberalism" and conservatism", it is describing modern or American liberalism or conservatism.
Where would you place each of these ideologies on the spectrum?
POLITICAL IDEOLOGY PDF