Liberalism v Conservatism Thursday October 17 2024 9 12 PM There is some recent quantitative and qualitative research in a book titled Ideology in America by Ellis and Stimson that suggests the following Americans are confused and conflicted when it comes to ideology On the one hand Americans seem to identify with conservative principles and conservative rhetoric They seem to celebrate the language of conservatism rugged individualism self reliance independence and personal responsibility On the other hand these same people want their share of the goods and services and public programs offered to them by government In other words Americans talk the talk but prefer not to walk the walk They want programs and personal benefits from government but in their rhetoric and in verbal expression they hold disdain for those they might label as takers How do you explain this phenomenon Where do you fit into the conversation Birkland p 17 classical liberalism In political theory the ideological system that emphasizes individual liberty and the ownership and acquisition of private property as a means to improve overall wealth and happiness and discourage social strife power derives from the consent of the governed that is the people themselves The people and not royalty or the state are therefore sovereign Thus when policy advocates seek to induce the government to make policy by taking an action or refusing to do so or when government actively engages in actions these advocates support one can make a claim that the government does so in the public interest Indeed many states have groups called Public Interest Research Groups or PIRGs which promote their interpretation of the public interest Liberalism is the political ideology on which the American political system is based public interest The assumed broader desires and needs of the public in whose name policy is made The public interest is hard to define but is something to which all policy advocates appeal p 91 Ideological stability occurs when Americans tend not to stray from a set of ideological precepts based largely on our national experience The United States has not had a labor party or workers movement because our ideological stability includes some suspicion of class warfare Ideological stability refers to the fact that Americans basic political beliefs do not change rapidly Americans have long valued personal liberty and equality although as Deborah Stone has noted this belief in liberty and equality is rather diffuse with considerable disagreement as to what these terms mean in practice p 93 The high value placed on liberty and equality is accompanied by a strong belief in the rule of law free market economics free enterprise and private property the two political parties in the United States considered together have tended to accommodate a relatively broad in American terms range of opinions because only two parties can reasonably contest elections in the United States This broad accommodation of ideologies has changed in recent years as more politically conservative people including many former southern Democrats have shifted to the Republican Party while to a lesser extent more moderate to liberal Republicans have moved to the Democratic Party While the United States party system has become more polarized in the last few decades the fact remains that the United States remains a two party system in which parties may ultimately need to locate a middle in the range of ideologies that can attract a sufficient number of voters to win elections Political stability Politics in the United States tend to be fairly stable Our constitutional structure has changed little since 1789 although practices under it have changed In 1800 Thomas Jefferson whose views were quite different from his predecessor s took office Policy stability Policies tend to change very little over time Policies such as laws governing business practices social welfare social security aid to the poor environmental protection and many others remain stable over time p 94 The separation of powers between Congress and the president can slow policy change as can the federal system of divided power between the national government and the states As James Madison a leading founder constitutional scholar and the fourth president of the United States explained in Federalist No 10 a primary benefit of federalism is that it contains policy fads or fast moving popular movements within one or a few states thus preventing the growth or expansion of conflict to the national level But there is a more affirmative and positive rationale for federalism Federalism fosters state innovation and induces states to improve their capacity to address problems that the federal government does not address Stability in power Changes in power tend not to cause major policy political or social upheavals The transition from one president to another or the transition in party dominance in a house of Congress is generally smooth democratically accepted and results in little sweeping immediate change p 94 laboratories of democracy innovations can be developed state by state and then adopted and adapted by other states devolution of federal govt states are more innovative and responsive than the too large federal government The answer to these questions of devolution versus control hinges on the assumption that states will make faithful efforts to build capacity to do the things the federal government seeks to accomplish with the block grant which is a grant of money to states that carries with it far fewer restrictions than many funded programs This is why the debates over these programs can be fierce some believe that the states cannot or will not implement a program the way the federal government wants it others argue that too much federal control fails to account for local differences and that these one size fits all solutions are ultimately less efficient and more prone to fail p 194 a small social movement was created calling for greater individual responsibility and stricter sanctions against those who do not exercise responsibility There are many ways that new and established groups can follow in the footsteps of these historic examples all of which have one thing in common they all created opportunities for participation in policy making where such opportunities were inaccessible Modern communications media however make it easier for new and grassroots groups such as MADD to mobilize expand