Liberalism

In this essay, I am going to discuss different theories of government such as liberalism and communism. I am going to go into depth on how these theories operate as well as discuss how these theories affect societies. I will also go into depth on how these theories operate and also provide critique on what is wrong with them. I am often going to use examples of past or present governments that practice these theories and how it has affected them. The main objective of this research paper is to prove why I believe liberalism theory provides a more prospering society than the communism theory.

First, I will go into depth on liberalism and discuss how the ideology behind it. The theory of liberalism is based on the “call for freedom of speech and thought” (Gaus, 2003). Liberalism puts an emphasis on freedom and each individual having an even playing field. In the article, “Principles of a Liberal Social Order,” by F.A. Hayek discusses how liberalism is the idea of limited government and enforcing laws that are necessary for society.

The idea behind this is that it allows individuals to perform at a higher level than any other form of government or theory. In the article, Hayek is discussing spontaneous order and says, “A spontaneous order is based on rules which leave the individuals free to use their knowledge for their own purposes, and an organization or arrangement based on commands is of central importance to understand the principles of a free society” (Hayek, 603). According to Hayek, liberalism provides individuals with the best opportunity to use their own knowledge to excel. The idea of liberalism focuses on a free market economy to give individual people the highest chance of thriving based on their own knowledge and determination.

According to John Mill’s, “As it is useful that while mankind are imperfect there should be different opinions, so is it that there should be different experiments of living; that free scope should be given to varieties of character, short of injury to others; and that the worth of different modes of life should be proved practically, when anyone thinks fit to try them” (Gaus, 2003). Mills is essentially stating how everyone is different and each individual should have their own opinions for what they believe.

However, people have the freedom to do whatever they choose, and some people will excel, and some people will fail. According to John Rawls, liberalism provides each individual with an opportunity to excel. This disregards how people were born physically, mentally, and economically. For example, a person who was born into wealth and a person born into poverty have an equal playing field to succeed. Rawls uses a principle called “Justice as Fairness” which he says each individual has a right to basic liberties no matter the situation (Gaus, 2003).

The theory of liberalism has been integrated in a number of countries. For example, the United States, has used the liberal theory in policies and beliefs over time. The United States has similarities to liberalism in the criteria of the economy, laws, and equality. Although not perfect, the United States tries to implement an economic market where people can thrive using their knowledge and abilities.

The United States also employs laws of basic liberties that every individual should have. They also try to implement an equal opportunity where everyone has a chance to thrive, but it is not a perfect system. Germany has also applied theories of liberalism to their government. In the 19th century, Germany recognized and implemented policies that were similar to the United States. In a book named “German Expansionism, Imperial Liberalism and the United States,” by Jens-Uwe Guettel states “Of all the German colonies, only Southwest Africa had a sizable settler population. By 1903, slightly less than 5,000 Europeans lived in the colony, but the number tripled within a decade.

As a result, the settlement of the American West was viewed as especially relevant for GSWA. Moreover, German observers attributed the success of America’s westward expansion to laissez-faire principles and the United States’ liberal political system. These reflections made American colonization practices especially attractive for liberal German expansionists” (Guettel, 2013). In result, many places tried to implement the same principles that the United States had intact.

The free market theory is the theory that was used a lot in governments. The United States as well as other countries implemented the Laissez-Faire Principle. The Laissez-Faire principle aims to have a free market, hands off economy. This principle correlates with liberalism because both of the visions are to let the economy thrive without a lot of interference and regulation.

On the other hand, liberalism has some critiques as well. Critiques have stated that the liberal political theory often represents liberal social practice in which correlates with the Marxist odeology (Walzer, 1990). Critiques look at this theory as people who are isolated. People that are shielded and divided by rights. They believe liberalism divides people and leaves them isolated in a society whit no form of community presence.

In this argument, critiques look at this theory as if it has no history. People do not share traditions because they only represent themselves (Walzer, 1990). Essentially, critiques believe that since the theory of liberalism focuses on freedom that in result it leaves a gap in history. They believe this because the freedom of each individuals is separate so therefore there are no traditions shared between one another. For example, the critiques believe that certain values, religions, etc. are not shared in a liberal society. Whereas, in the communist theory, all the citizens have the same values and beliefs.

According to Karl Marx, the theory of liberalism is not rational because it is difficult to diminish the evil in society. He believes the only rational thought is to abolish society itself (Buchanan, 1982). Marx believe that the liberal theory opens the door up to a society where evil is abundant. The idea is based on in a liberal society people become greedy, exploit, and manipulate people and or things. In result, Marx believes the only way to abolish the evil is to abolish society itself. He also believes “Only communism enables the full satisfaction of undistorted desires, and satisfaction is maximized only in a society whose members have such desires” (Buchanan, 1982).

From a feminist and communist point of view, they believe the liberalism theory “Denies the embeddedness in the social world that is definitive of human life” (Hekman, 1992). This means that the theory of liberalism puts a division between men and women. Hekman states, “Due to the differing psychoanalytic development of boys and girls, boys are encouraged to develop masculine traits while girls are actively discouraged” (Hekman, 1992).

Critiques believe the liberalism theory encourage one gender while discouraging another. In result, this belief means that men are developed to have individuality while women are not therefore are not ready to live a separate life. Feminists and Communists believe that the theory of liberalism only prepares men for the life of freedom and individuality. Leaving the women to be unprepared and left isolated. Communist theorists also believe the equality of opportunity is not as even as it is in the communism theory. Communism idea of equality is giving everyone the same things and everyone being equal. Whereas, from a liberal point of view equality is providing everyone with an even playing field of opportunity to succeed in their economy.

An argument against liberalism also states that Rawl’s concept of justice has major flaws. This is because his concept requires a essential concept to the community which his concept does not contain therefore Rawl’s concept is irrelevant (Hekman, 1992).

Next, we will discuss the theory of communism is only that. Although, there are communist leaders, communism itself has never been practiced. In this section, we will go into further depth on the communism theory and what it is. In a book called “Communism and Political Culture Theory” by Gabriel Almond, discusses how the theory of the communist system focuses on the experiment of attitude change.

Almond talks about how communities are constantly watched, schools have rigorous teachings of the communist ideology, and in general, there are a set of rules and beliefs for the system (Almond, 1983). If any of these rules are disobeyed, there is severe punishment for those actions. Commmunism focuses on having the proletariat take over the classes in which they lead. The communism theory focuses on abolishing private property and having profitable economy with the means of productions.

To go more in depth on the communism theory, we will discuss Vladimir Lenin. Lenin was a communism advocate and had a theory known as “Leninism.” According to “Leninism” by Neil Harding, “Leninism constituted the most comprehensive alternative to global capitalism and every variant of bourgeois society” (Harding, 1996). According to Lenin, the theory was a “society that forfeited its right to exist” (Harding, 1996).

Lenin wanted to implement a whole new set of beliefs and values because everything else was “aged.” His philosophy was to take private property form capitalists for nothing in return (Fineberg). Lenin also implemented a policy called the “Tax In Kind” policy which took food and gave it directly to the state for redistribution to the people (Fineberg). Lenin proceeded to implement these actions too quickly which resulted it to have repercussions.

One of the ideas of what Lenin and the communism theory wanted was to help the proletariat class thrive. They believed the communism theory was the most rational way because the free market would not help the lower class excel. Marx and Lenin put an emphasis on building a party to overthrow the bourgeoisie then nominating a dictator to take another step toward communism (Harding, 1996).

However, there are many critiques of the communism theory. One of the arguments that come with communism is the establishment of practicing communism. This is important because this theory has never been actually implemented. In an article by Gabriel Almond, he states, “The attitudes that communist movements encounter in countries where they take power are viewed as false consciousness.

These attitudes are viewed as the consequences of preexisting class structure and the underlying mode of production. Communist movements either eliminate or seek to undermine the legitimacy of these preexisting structures and replace them with a new set of rules” (Almond, 1983). Almond goes on to discuss how the transformation to communism would take a long time, if ever to implement. Burnham states, “According to Communists, the real problem is qualitative change – the change from water, the solid, into ice or gas. It is the change from capitalist to a communist society.

The revolution – that moment in the social process when the historical temperature reaches 212 degrees is the real meaning of the historical process, the real key, the real crux, and it is toward this that their attention is always invariably directed” (Burnham, 1952). Burnham continues by saying how communists do not want steady changes, they want to transition rapidly. This quote shows the argument of the transition might be the most key element of them all. If communists do not have the patience to make the slow changes to become what they envision then how will it ever work. Everyday citizens do not want their governmental system to be turned upside down in a day.

Critiques also argue that the communism economic theory is not effective. Instead of supply and demand setting prices, the government does, this can result in economic downfall and no competition. This economic system can also result in an underground market where individuals will trade for what they want because they feel as if they cannot obtain items through their government.

The communist theory is also argued to lead to other downfalls. For example, crime and poverty being at the top of the list. Communism can lead to crime because when people feel as if they are trapped, they turn to survival mode. People will do anything to survive and if their governmental system is not working, they find other ways. Poverty is also a correlation with communism. If the economy owned by the government runs out of goods, money, etc. then what will the people do? They could possibly starve as well as other things. Communism relating to these key elements is another setback for the theory of communism.

Lastly, I will discuss how liberalism is the best overall theory in comparison to the communism theory. The idea of the liberalism theory is based around freedom and equal opportunity. A liberal theory focuses on providing its individuals with the free market economy to provide the highest possible achievement of individuals through their own knowledge. According to F.A. Hayek, this allows competition to be highest possible.

The liberal theory aims to provide individuals with the freedom to do whatever they wish to do. I believe the liberalism theory is the most effective because it provides an overall theory that help people excel at what they choose to do. It also provides an economy full of competition and profit which is one of the most important things to a society. In a prospering society, it is significant that individuals be able to purse and differ from things.

A society that lets people flourish without restrictions is a thriving society. People do not like to be told what to do, it is human nature. The liberalism theory allows people to both agree and disagree with one another without repercussions. At the end of the day, I disagree with communist theorists on the idea that the liberalism theory causes isolation. Yes, these individuals are allowed to pursue and believe different things, but it does not mean they do not share traditions.

The communism theory of individuals being told what they need to do seems more isolated. People that are told what to do become depressed and isolated in general, I do not see how the communist idea of this can work. According to James Burnham, when discussing communism from the Marxist point of view, “True communism will succeed the Revolution, it will combine all the richness of civilization with the purity of primitive communism, but in a new way – not just the primitive ownership of everything in common, but an organization of society such that, though no individual has any special ownership interest in the means of production, all can have an abundance of individual and personal goods” (Burnham, 1952).

The idea of this sounds good, but people become greedy, not everyone wants the same stuff as everyone else. People begin to want more and decide to rebel against the system. Also, the “abundance of individuals and personal goods” is hard to imagine as well. The economic ideology of a communist theory makes it where an economic decline is easily susceptible. In result, it is possible that there could be a shortage in goods for the people.

The history of liberalism also proves to be more effective than communism. Whereas communism has yet to be practiced, liberalism has been implemented in many societies. Referring back to the United States from earlier, other societies were copying their Lassiez-Faire and liberalism principles. On the other hand, the communism theory has proved not to work. It is hard to maintain a thriving economy when free market competition is taken away.

It forces people to look elsewhere, for example, the underground market. One of the most essential problems about the communism theory is that it often can lead to totalitarianism. Earlier in the paper I discussed the transition of a certain system to communism. Transitioning a capitalistic system to a communist system is near impossible. During the transition, the economy will start to decline because going from a free market economy to an economy that is owned by the government greatly decreases money flow. For example, the communist theory aims to own means of production.

Over time, the economy will slow down because money is not coming and going. Also, there are many internal conflicts in a communist theory. For example, one of the biggest problems of internal conflicts are groups within the party, these groups usually represent a belief of their own (Kornai, 1992). Internal conflicts can also happen between the influence between ethnic groups and power between generations (Kornai, 1992). Conflicts like these, is when totalitarianism starts to become what was communism. For example, Joseph Stalin was part of the communist party in the Soviet Union.

He became in charge and pursed absolute power (Library of Congress). According to the Library of Congress, “Stalin had eliminated all likely potential opposition to his leadership by late 1934 and was the unchallenged leader of both party and state. Nevertheless, he proceeded to purge the party rank and file and to terrorize the entire country with widespread arrests and executions. During the ensuing Great Terror, which included the notorious show trials of Stalin’s former Bolshevik opponents in 1936-1938 and reached its peak in 1937 and 1938, millions of innocent Soviet citizens were sent off to labor camps or killed in prison” (Library of Congress).

In conclusion, I believe this proves that the theory of liberalism is a better alternative to the theory of communism. Liberalism promotes the idea of a freedom and equality whereas the theory of communism wants everyone to be equal. Liberalism has been practiced and recognized to succeed. Whereas, the theory of communism has never been practiced and can lead to a totalitarian state.

The basic ideas of liberalism are for the economy to thrive and for individuals to have an equal opportunity. On the other hand, the communism theory is a disadvantage to the economy because there is no economic flow. Communism’s idea is to provide the individual’s with equal opportunity, but the people are never allowed to grow. At the end of the day, liberalism is a more simple and effective theory compared to the theory of communism where the transition in general is a near impossible task in itself.

Chapter#4-Poetical Culture and Ideology In the textbook, American Political Culture Is described as the extensive communal pollens, standards, and morals citizens have In correlation with the government, as well as in relation with each other. One of the contributing factors that make the culture that way is suffrage, which is the right to vote. For example, our thoughts in suffrage went from the belief that white men who own property are allowed to vote to all citizens who are adults, besides criminals in some cases, have that right.

Another season for this would be deliberation, which is the procedure where administrators or people gather to converse and contemplate public Issues, along with social capital, which Is democratic and municipal series of debating, agreement, and regard for contrast, which derives from involvement in optional groups. An example that represents these overlapping ideas is political campaigning because of their extensive use in internet that allows people to interact with each other on their thoughts.

Our shared values include natural rights (born with moral rights), liberty sovereignty), equality (providing fair opportunities to all, no discrimination), Individualism (freedom of action for individuals over group authority), respect for the common person (does not have to be superior with money In order to be respected; common people can be successful: makes economy thrive), democratic consensus (we all come to a common line), and majority rule/popular sovereignty (allowing people to decide who can go forward on).

These can all relate to political culture, because these are what we believe in as a nation to be Just, and these beliefs that we hare with others and the government is political culture. The most Important aspects are equality, and respect for the common person, because without these two attributes, our nation would not provide equal opportunities to everyone who are not considered to be superior above all else because of the lacking amount of money they have.

Equality and respect for the common person helps to make our democracy prosper. The American Dream is defined as “the widespread belief that the United States is a land of opportunity and that individual Initiate and hard work can bring economic success”(Government by the People 112).

In terms of work, success, and capitalism, these can be shown through the ownership of one’s private property, availability/people who work hard that get economic rewards (free market system gives everyone equal opportunities and freedom depends on capitalism which helps grow our economy), wealthy people who fund campaigning projects, and wealthy people who fund money to try and influence elections or public policy (such as donating money to organizations to prove their support for that particular topic). Verbalism- Liberalism alludes to the belief that the government can affect fairness and equality of option. Examples of this would be shown through their support on equal access to health care, same-sex marriage, abortion, other forms of individual choices, more environmental protection, education for all citizens, protection for workers’ health and safety, affirmative action programs, and tax rates that rise with a person’s income. Menservants- Conservatism touches upon the belief that limited government guarantees order, competitive markets, and ones’ own personal equines opinions, the main task of the government should be to protect the country from foreign invaders, support economic growth by promoting competitive markets, and free fair trade, encouraging family values, rejecting Judicial laws that allow abortion, same-sex marriage and affirmative action programs. Socialism- Socialism is an economic and governmental practice that depends on public ownership involving production and exchange.

Various examples of this would be represented in wanting a immensely expanded role in nationalizing industries, taxing the wealthy more than rower and middle class men, instituting a public Jobs program and cutting defense spending. Environmentalism- Environmentalism is a supposition that looks at environment instead of genes/heredity as the significant element in the growth and particularly the cultural and cognitive development of a group or individual.

Examples of this would be viewed through dealing with issues regarding global warming, overpopulation, and genetic engineering. Libertarianism- Libertarianism is the ethics that fosters individual liberty and promotes minimal government, advocating a free market economy, a nonintervention’s foreign policy, and a lack of regulation in moral, economic, and social life.

Examples of this include favoring major cuts in government spending and a termination to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Internal Revenue Service, and the most regulatory commissions, opposing all government regulation (mandatory seat- belt and helmet laws), because they believe the attitude “live and let live” and thinks that an undistorted free market will benefit individuals. I would describe the American people in terms of their political ideology as mostly well balanced, even though the majority of the groups are conservatives, according to figures 4-2, 4-3, and 4-4.

My reason for this is because in all figures, they showed a significant amount of conservatives/conservative related opinions that outnumbered the moderate and liberal groups. In figure 4-2, 77% of people thinks that “there is too much power concentrated in the hands of a few big companies” (116). This issue is mostly interpreted by conservatives. Also, in figure 4-3, once I added up the totals of the sex, race, age, religion, education, and party columns for each of the 4 groups, conservatives won the majority out of the other 3 groups.

In figure 4-4, it showed results that there was a slight increase of conservatives in 2008 (most recent year noted), and a steady decrease for other groups as well, including liberals, and moderates, whereas the don’t know/have not thought about it group has increased very slightly. Conclusions that I can reach about the ideology of people of the United States are the facts that ideology overtime shown in figure 4-2, is well balanced for all of the conservatives, liberals, don’t know/have not thought about it group, and moderates.

Also, there has been more of an increase shown in moderate/don’t know/ haven’t thought about it group, as well as conservatives only. In 4-2, the graph shows how the don’t know/haven’t thought about it group has increased compared to all else, besides conservatives. In figure 4-3, it also shows similar results, representing that there has been an increase of moderates/don’t know/have not thought about it rope (47%), there are more conservatives (17%)/slightly conservative (12%) than liberals liberal (3%).

I think that Americans are mostly a part of the moderate/don’t know/haven’t thought about it group, because there has been rising solution than the other groups’. This can lead to an indecisiveness for all people who have been passionate in the past with their former group, because they may have disappointed them with agreeing in something/many other things that the person would not agree with, and then not being able to agree with other ideologies as well.

Corporations are creatures of the State and therefore must be watched closely by the citizenry to their repetitions to disrupt the Smithson spontaneous order. These axioms constitute the basic elements of laissez-fairer thought, although another basic antidote-disregarded element Is that markets should be competitive, a rule that the early advocates buffaloes-faller have always emphasized Liberal Government introduce social welfare reforms in the early twentieth century In the late 19th century the British government practiced the principle of laissez- fairer.

Laissez fairer means the business market are free from tariffs, government subsidies and enforced monopolies [2]. Under the principle of Laissez fairer, government only provides simple maintenance of law and order, protect property rights against theft and aggression with regulations [3]. Individuals were responsible for their own decisions, to protect and improve their own lives and welfare. [l] After the general election in 1906, the Liberal welfare reform was introduced between 1906 to 1914, changing the attitude and policies towards the poverty.

The liberal reforms for children are, free school meals, school medical inspections, Children ‘s charter act and school clinic. The old age pensions act, labor exchange for the unemployed and national insurance for workers were also carried out eventually within this period of time. [l] The attitude towards the working class shifted from individuality to a more aggregate way . The Liberal reforms changed the economy, politic and social circumstances[l] ,and lead Britain to a more well structuralizes and strong country.

The reasons of the reforms were, changes in attitude, the Boer War, social reform, political changes and the fear of being overtaken. [4] The Ideology of Laissez fairer had assumed how a society should work , free trade, redeem of making a decision in the late 19th century before the liberal social reforms being introduce. The role of government was to make sure and guarantee the freedom of the citizens and market. They provided military forces to regulate the property rights and exchange between parties. 4] The principle Idea Is to allow citizens from greatest possible freedom. The central idea of this ideology was based on self-help, government was not responsible for the poverty and hardship for their citizens[l] Instead the citizens… How does Social Darwinism reinforce Laissez-fairer? 1 OFF f good breeding you will not succeed, if you are, you will. Well, much like pre- destination, if you already know what is going to happen, what’s the point of being good, improving yourself, etc. In that case, let the good times roll! Answer Usually the point is put differently.

Social Darwinist oppose welfare (and if really extreme, even charity) on the grounds that it allegedly interferes with the functioning of the ‘laws of natural selection’ and the ‘survival of the fittest’; they argue that any system other than laissez fairer will result in the unfit (who, they say, should simply perish) Redding like rabbits and so forth. In other words, they fall back on laissez fairer as a system that they are willing to accept. Some very extreme Social Darwinist would prefer to accelerate natural selection by artificial means as happened under the Nazis.

Jounce Answer to break this down, the strongest will survive in free trade (this is the easy way to say it). If you have an unstable economy and no central gobo. You will fail and will not be able to participate in free-trade (Laissez-fair) Characteristics of Laissez-fairer related to social welfare 1 . Leadership Style Characteristics Emphasis on Performance Low emphasis on performance. Emphasis on People Low emphasis on people. DEAD RESHIP STYLE 2. Leadership Philosophy Assumptions about people People are unpredictable and trying to understand them is a waste of time.

Assumptions about the role of a leader Keep a low profile, be obedient, and don’t make waves. 3. Management Skills Planning and Setting Objectives Plans and establishes objectives only if required to do so. Organizing Lives with whatever structure he is given. Controlling Abdicates controlling to employees. Decision Making Motivating Leaves people alone. Nothing seems to work anyway. Communicating Communication is non-committal, superficial, and avoided. Developing Leaves development up to employees. If people want to develop themselves, that is their business.

Use of Reward and Punishment Avoids rewarding or punishing people. Approach to Handling Conflicts Ignores conflicts and hopes they will disappear. Approach to Handling Problems and Mistakes Ignores problems and mistakes unless forced to deal with them. Interpersonal Relationships with Employees Avoids close relationships and lets employees do pretty much as they please. Use of Power and Authority Power and authority are abdicated to whomever wants to assume them. Delegation Practices Responsibilities are assumed by default rather than through delegation.

Benefits of Laissez-fairer Leadership Laissez-fairer leaders allow followers to have complete freedom to make discountenancing the completion of their work. The laissez-fairer leader using guided freedom provides the followers with all indiscriminateness to accomplish their goals, but does not directly participate in decision meaningfulness the followers request their assistance. Laissez-fairer leadership instills a higher sense of responsibility among team embers. This form of leadership exposes team members to tough business situations, helping them gain more experience and grow faster. Rearwards larger picture. This form of leadership can boost the commitment of team members to achieve the desegregated. Drawbacks of Laissez-fairer Leadership Laissez-fairer leadership may be the best or the worst of leadership styles. If the leader follows temporally understood definition and standard practice of noninterference and “hands-off’ wonderfully leading his or her followers, the worst form of leadership is manifested. However,when the twenty-first century ropey prepares his or her followers, laissez-fairer lithographer’s as the ultimate form of leading.

If team members do not have adequate experience or the required skills, the achievement targets may be at great risk. Important decisions that need to be taken at short notice can go horribly wrong. If people are not self-driven and disciplined, laissez-fairer leadership can lead to a great dealer inefficiency. The team may become prone to repeating mistakes and may fail to get out of problems eyeteeth encounter during a project. Team members may get off track and may not prioritize correctly.

Scenarios Where Laissez-fairer Leadership can Work This is an effective style to use when: The prerequisite for laissez-fairer leadership is having a strong leader, with a proven trajectory of success. Followers are highly skilled, experienced, and educated. Followers are able to analyze the situation. Followers have pride in their work and the drive to do it successfully on their own. Outside experts, such as staff specialists or consultants are being used. Followers are trustworthy and experienced. When close monitoring of a decision is not needed.

Conclusions In this project we studied about laissez-fairer leadership in detail. Almost all the components affiliates-fairer leaderships has been discussed briefly. We can conclude from this study that Tallahassee-fairer leadership can be productive as well as destructive because everything depends phone situation of the crisis or condition. In those cases where subordinates are sophisticated, skillfulness experienced this style emerges with great innovative future perspective. Whereas in commences where subordinates are novice, denominated and with poor morale this Tyler causes greatcoats destroying the whole organization and leadership.

Laissez- fairer should not be misstatement the empowerment of the employees in some organizations it could be true but it really deposition the behavior of leadership whether he is showing inactivity for the sake of his aloofness endlessness or he is trying to provide innovative environment to his skilled employee. Although theater numerous research studies on the topic to prove which leadership is best but we are not certainty but the best leadership style occurs which matches the situation

The Great Depression caused hardship for almost everyone in America. Franklin Roosevelt and Herbert Hoover were two presidents during this era with two very different approaches on how to deal with It. Roosevelt Is generally thought of as a liberal, while Hoover Is considered a conservative. A liberal Is generally someone who pushes for direct government involvement In citizens’ lives, while a conservative typically pushes for limited government.

Roosevelt did indeed have a more liberal approach, putting mammoth sums of money into relief programs directly for the people; Hoover was conservative in his approach?he claimed it was the Job of churches and private charities to provide relief, however became less conservative towards the end of his term. Hoover was especially conservative for the beginning of his term. He showed limited government involvement through very limited spending. In 1929, the first year of Hover’s term, the government expenditures were only $3. 27 billion, barely rising 1933, however, spending Increased to $4. 659 billion and $4,598 billion, respectively Doc F), showing that his conservatism decreased a bit. The deficit still remained extremely low, showing Hover’s unwillingness to be too Involved In recovering the economy, but rather allowing the private factor to grow. Hoover also worked on limiting government by literally limiting government?by not increasing control or spreading bureaucracy. He said that Liberalism, “should not be found striving to spread bureaucracy but striving to set bounds to it” (Doc A).

He showed his conservative values by criticizing a large government. He also left the charity work to private charities and churches, saying that “economic depression cannot be curbed by legislative action or executive pronouncement (Doc 8). Later in his term Hoover became slightly more liberal in his approaches to ending the Great Depression. The federal expenditure Increased from $3. 127 billion In 1929 to $4. 659 billion In 1932 (Doc F). He started helping the people more directly by creating huge government sponsored projects which created Jobs. These Include the Hoover Dam.

Hoover also hectically increased the size of government, passing more legislation and creating more bureaucracy. Under him later in his term, farmers were lent money to buy and sell agricultural goods and were helped through cooperatives. Such spending and loaning is very liberal. Hoover wanted to “rehabilitate agriculture” through “large appropriations for loans” (Doc D). Document C depicts Hoover as no longer caring about being seen as conservative, rather saving the poor by spending government money. Roosevelt, unlike Hoover, was a liberal president from the beginning to the ND of his term.

He stated himself that “Liberalism becomes the protection for the far-sighted conservative” (Doc G). This not only promotes liberalism, but attacks conservatism. Franklin Roosevelt liberalism Is most clearly seen through the federal spending under him. During his term, annual government expenditures rose from government spending more to end the depression. Roosevelt also, as Hoover did legislation and increasing bureaucracy. The legislation included the Works Progress Administration. The WAP cost $1 1. 4 billion and employed a huge portion of the workforce.

He also passed the Agricultural Adjustment Act to stabilize the farm industry by decreasing the surplus created by farms. FDA can be characterized as liberal due to his extensive spending, loans, and government intervention. While FDA is most commonly known as a liberal and Herbert Hoover is most commonly known as a conservative, Hoover became more liberal in his approach to ending the Great Depression toward the end of his term. Although Hoover played a part in ending the Great Depression, it really took Fad’s extreme liberalism to completely recover America’s economy.

For so long women have had the image of someone who was at home, cooking and cleaning and was weaker and submissive to men. As time passes the nuclear family promotes women having jobs rather then the men having the job in the family and women at home. After World War 2 you have both men and women working in a family now. And even when they have jobs there still mostly jobs like nurses or teachers. As my father grew up he sees that the image of a women changes and they start to break the stereotype.

For example: There has been women’s – established decades ago. Women’s physique is also changing, which also breaks the stereotype, however it takes time to do that because women are stained with this image. The Women’s rights movement is increasing throughout the years since my father was young. The social status in women is getting closer and closer to men’s and even sometimes higher then men. Once they are in this position they have the need and want for more because they can. Once they have more money etc. Inns can happen more easily for them. Women are able to act more freely and society, the limits to what women can and cannot due are getting cut loose every year which allows them to do more. For ex: women were not even able to join the army but they were able to join the army and now recently a year ago they are able to join in the line of combat. Women are gaining more freedom exponentially, because with every boundary cut another two can be cut. Women were able to advance a lot in different careers and in court.

Women’s rights have been increasing because you have women in higher power asking now instead of lower class women. In conclusion it is easier for women now and the roles are much more different because they have broken stereotypical boundaries and achieved higher classes. Everyday women are taking a step forward into 100% equality. Every year women are unlocking more and more fields that women were not available to. If you kick around today’s society you will see women’s roles changing gradually.

More or less zero. The way things look right now, there is no chance that Republicans in Congress are going to feel as if they have any reason to cooperate with Obama. They are going to oppose him on everything important and hope that they can beat him next November President President Obama has recently introduced a number of reforms and job stimulus ideas, all of which have been rejected or tabled by the Republican controlled House of Representatives.

Both Obama’s introducing them (knowing they had no chance) and the House rejecting them (knowing an election is coming) were political moves timed to position themselves for running in the strongest possible environment. I think both sides know they cannot fix the economy by next November, so they are trying to impress upon voters who they should blame for it. Obama’s window of opportunity was from 2009-midterm elections in 2010.

Unless something seriously alters the political dynamic between now and next fall, Republicans in Congress will “play to their base,” and thus see compromise as politically lethal. There are very few aspects of Obama’s agenda that stand a chance of getting through Congress, I think My first pick is Franklin D. Roosevelt. He faced so much hardship in his time of office (the Great Depression and World War II). He was elected to rescue the nation from its worst economic crisis ever! FDR exuded hope to people accustomed to despondency.

Acting immediately, in his fabled first hundred days in office, FDR enacted much of the framework of his “New Deal” economic program, which was to get Americans working again, even if it cost the government a fortune to do it. He created agency after agency in an attempt to put people to work. Roosevelt also looked to protect Americans at risk of impoverishment by establishing federal programs to support individuals financially with programs like Social Security and the establishment of a national minimum wage; Roosevelt protected unions with the passage of the National Labor Relations Act.

My second choice, which my wife thought I was insane for, is Richard Nixon. Love him or hate him, the late 1960s and early 1970s were all about Richard Nixon. He entered office with the undeclared war in Southeast Asia as the nation’s albatross, and personally directed its prosecution. Without a mandate to do so, he escalated the conflict, and then shifted the emphasis from ground forces to air power, and eventually negotiated with the North Vietnamese.

He successfully split the Soviets and the Chinese from Hanoi by playing the two superpowers off against each other, and then initiated the foreign policy objective of Detente to reduce tensions between the East and West. In doing so, Nixon laid the groundwork for much that was to follow. Domestically, he implemented new economic policies and rallied the “silent majority” to action. The only real threat to Richard Nixon was, in the end, himself. Were it not for his self-inflicted wounds, his presidency would have been seen as an unmitigated triumph.

“In terms of both personality and policies, Alexander Ill did not posses the qualities necessary for a successful ruler of late 19th-century Russia” – to what extent to you agree with this Judgment? Whilst the Judgment could be considered well-founded, its validity is a matter of opinion, depending on how one defines the qualities of a ‘successful ruler’ of Russia in the late sass, which policies contribute to this success and what, overall, makes a Tsar a success or a failure (if the matter can be categorized so dictatorially).

Disregarding the technicalities of the Judgment, although Alexander Ill may not have assessed all the qualities that would have classed him as a successful Tsar, he was not entirely lacking in them – nor in his policies – therefore meaning that the statement is not entirely correct. Before discussing what made a successful 19th century Russian autocrat, it must be ascertained what ‘successful’ entails: in this case, it would be achieving the aims of the autocrat/autocracy.

The primary aim of an autocrat in the sass would be to preserve or extend the autocracy and its power both internally and internationally, meaning that there would be few or no concessions of power and that the Tsar would appear as a forceful, formidable figure to both its allies and enemies and in the eyes of citizens of the Russian Empire in both the motherland and its annexes. This was obviously extremely important to Alexander Ill, given his ‘Manifesto of Unshakeable Autocracy in April 1881.

Secondary aims may have varied from Tsar to Tsar but for Alexander these were: the rejection of democracy and the reversal of Alexander SIS liberalism, which fitted neatly with the preservation of autocracy; the removal of opposition that had arisen during Alexander SIS reign, including crushing the threat of revolution; and the economic and industrial modernization of Russia, moving it towards becoming a ‘Great Power’.

And of course, he would have to possess the support of the majority Russian people, though this was generally a given, as even – if not especially – those who had never seen the Tsar were convinced of his positions as ‘gods anointed’ and their ‘Little Father’. Depending on how high a regard the Tsar is held in, it could be suggested that humanitarian aims were present however, for the purposes of this essay, this will not be included, as an overview of Alexander Ills reign suggest that whilst he made some inclusion for his workers and subjects, many freedoms and rights were compromised to further the ‘greater good’.

Autocracy generally protects the autocrat from criticism of personal traits, though, if in possession of some or lacking in others, it may make the autocrat’s rule easier or harder. To be both a highly autocratic ruler and to be successful, one would have had to appear as both ruthless and honest, likeable yet formidable, as the ‘little father’ to the peasants whilst also appearing as working to protect the upper class and as incredibly patriotic, though not to the extent that it would disadvantage the country.

An well rounded education in militarily, state and economic matters, though not technically a personality trait, would also be beneficial for a Tsar to possess, allowing him to be thoughtful and therefore to curb any headstrong impulsiveness he may have had. In terms of policy, depending on the Tsar’s aims, how well they supported of achieved those aims and how well they were received helped his achievement of prosperity in his role as successful and popular policies make for a successful and popular rule.

Despite this, it must be noted that although a Tsar had the potential to cake or break the country, advisors often tempered him, especially if those advisors had previously been influential in his life, meaning a Tsar’s successfulness could be down to more than Just his personality or the policies he made. In terms of preserving the autocracy, and reversing the steps towards democracy his father had taken, Alexander Ill was arguably very successful, especially in his dealings with revolutionary groups and opposition in the sass and sass.

After his fathers assassination by members of the terrorist group the ‘People’s Will’ – ‘Normandy Volta’ – the Tsar ruthlessly cracked down on groups and organizations hat opposed him through the return of rigid censorship, exiles to Siberia and executions, such as the hanging of Alexandra Llanos and four others in 1887.

The policy that allowed his authorities more power in pursuing opposition groups was the 1881 Statute of State Security, which gave the state the power to declare an area of the country under ‘extraordinary protection’ and to therefore impose what essentially amounted to martial law: the banning of public meetings could be banned, the closing and restriction of schools, the extension of powers of the police especially the Koruna) and the arrest of anybody who was deemed ‘liberal’ or in opposition to the regime.

Furthermore, whilst the restrictions of censorship were resented by many (especially the revolutionaries, liberals and those calling for social change) it certainly did slow the spread of anti-tsarist ideas that had contributed to the dislike of autocracy and later the assassination of Alexander II. The combination of the restrictions on physically forming opposition groups and the restrictions on the spread of ideologies made it difficult for revolutionaries to even arm groups, let alone for them to actually perform any revolutionary actions.

Whilst the methods through which Alexander Ill kept control of Russia were radical, conservative and incredibly harsh, they were no less effective for that and ensured a fairly stable, though oppressive, reign for him making him successful in his preservation of autocracy and the removal of the threat of revolution in his time. Economically and industrially, Russia was lagging behind Europe in the late sass.

Alexander Ill intended to change that through a protectionist economic policy, imposing customs duties on imported goods to recover Russian’s economy and allowing rapid industrial and infrastructural growth – the latter intending to an increase in the number of workers in industrial areas – and was fairly successful in the matter. He was also successfully frugal in accounting in state finances, though Russian’s expenditure on debt was still fairly high.

With his ministers Bungee, Witted & Yesterdays he achieved his aim of a major boost of progress both economically and industrially, whilst also attempting to improve agricultural production – evidence of this success being the 8% per annum Roth in Russian’s economy. Antithetical to the progress made was the social conditions that went along with it. Living conditions in towns and cities were mostly poor and often factory work paid poorly, leaving poverty, overcrowding and discontent to fester with the workers.

In addition to this, though its efficiency improved, agriculture was exploited to the extent that major famines were caused, the largest in 1891 , as emphasis was placed on exporting the agricultural products, rather than letting peasants provide from themselves with them. High taxes were also placed on peasants to fund the instruction of railway lines, such as the Trans-Siberian Railway, and this furthered the poverty experienced by many in both developed and rural areas, though it did allow for improvement in the internal transportation of goods and of people (another successfully achieved aim).

There was a definite lack of basic societal care in Alexander Ill, yet he was not entirely negligent in his role of the ‘Little Father’ to his subjects: The Peasant Land Bank was set up in 1883, giving cheap loans to allow peasants to buy their own land; redemption payments were lowered, allowing extremely poor peasants to move emend subsidence farming; and, in towns and cities, factories were legislated with working hours established and an inspectorate employed.

In some ways, his work for the ‘greater good’ could be considered more characteristic of a successful Tsar than humanitarianism would be as a Tsar’s first duty was to God and his country, meaning that improvement of the country should be attempted no matter what the cost to its people (who were supposed to shared his loyalties, given his adopted slogan of ‘Nationality, Orthodoxy, Autocracy.

As far as foreign policy goes, Alexander Ills title as the ‘Peacekeeper’ Tsar is perhaps s deserved as his fathers title the Tsar ‘Liberator’ was; though his policies successfully kept the peace, it was most likely not for pacifistic, humanitarian reasons (as far as we know, or can deduct) but rather to allow for Russia to improve practically. Evidence of this is that, although diplomatically peaceful, the Tsar opposed doctrines of peace fairly strongly, preferring the view that a nation must be prepared for war in order to avoid it.

No major wars occurred during his reign, and given the problems that the Crimean War had left in its wake, this was a definite success on his part. Ensuring a tentative peace with Germany and Austria-Hungary with the Three Emperors’ Alliance with the renewal of it in 1881, Alexander Ill successfully gained security for the first few years of his reign.

The circumnavigation of collapse of this from 1885-1887 due to conflict in the Balkans potentially avoided any major problems for Russia and instead left them option to pursue Franco-Russian policy to fill the vacuum left by Russian’s estrangement from Germany & Austria-Hungary, earning another success for the Tsar in his foreign policy.

Of course, the fact collapse of the Three Emperors’ Alliance, along with the tensions n the Balkans (though a continuance from previous Tsar’s agendas) could be counted as a failing on Alexander part, but this is largely negated by his other successes, such his cautious avoidance of conflict with any European or Asian powers whilst gradually expanding Russian influence and power.

Contrary to the success Alexander had with his foreign policy, a domestic policy that mostly failed and caused much resentment with in the Russian Empire was Rustication – the attempted unification of the Russian Empire under one ruler, one religion, one language and one culture. In abstract, Rustication would supposedly eave united the peoples of the Russian Empire and wiped out the threat of revolution and made Russia a dominant power in Europe, however all it did in reality was anger those whose cultures, religions or languages were being repressed, and spawn resentment towards the Tsar in all corners of his Empire.

Obviously it was a policy that failed, given that it had been intended to quell revolutionary action and unify the state when, instead, it caused further divisions between the myriad of ethnicities present in Russia and actually grew revolutionary movements in areas like Poland, Lithuania and Ukraine. For Alexander Ill to be classed as successful the personal qualities needed for a ruler and the policies that may have been needed to achieve his aims would have been a balancing act of epic proportions – something that only somebody who had been raised to be a ruler could manage to do with any degree of success.

As the second son of Alexander II, Alexander Ill was not expected to become Tsar and was educated only to the standard of a Grand Duke of the period, the finer points of ruling a country were not taught to him until his brother Nicolas died in 1865. Despite him being described as a gruff, narrow minded and fairly crude (Queen Victoria described him as “a sovereign she does not look upon as a gentleman”) Alexander Ill was of true Russian character: a deeply religious, moral & honest man with an imposing figure and fiery temperament.

These traits would have fitted the profile of a Tsar fairly well in abstract but, in reality, the coarseness of Alexander character prevented them from being viewed as such. Alexander natural conservatism was likely furthered by the assassination of his father by radicals, and by the influence of Photostatted – his reactionary tutor – ND that the dangers that liberalism connoted, given the numerous attempts on his fathers life, and later on his own.

However, conservatism obviously was not a bad trait to possess in the late 19th century, as the previous Tsar’s liberalism had granted freedoms to those who would wish to end autocracy and in return had been granted a caved in skull. Gruffness of nature was characteristic of Alexander and, whilst it may have looked upon degradingly by the other nobles of Europe, it gained him a certain kind of respect from his people as he gave not only an impression of solidity and strength, UT also one of rough-cut solidarity with his people.

For an long period of time, the Romano Tsars had been untouchable, not only as divine, but also in the distinctions of class between them and their subjects, therefore having a Tsar who was relatable, but not ‘soft’, as Alexander II may have been thought of as, was highly desirable. As far as being liked or admired as a person, Alexander was well liked by sloppiness and many of the Russian peasants who felt a ruler who was suspicious of the west, highly patriotic and characteristic of the ideal Russian man was one they could purport, and consequently, one who would be successful.

On a slightly humorous note, an example of a quality that may have proved endearing to the typical Russian worker was his love of drinking. Even after he was diagnosed with kidney problems and forbidden alcohol by his wife, Alexander continued to drink, using hidden compartments in his boots to store flasks of alcohol that, when his wife left the room, he Jokingly pulled out and swigged from. Alternately, the lack of education and culture Alexander Ill displayed made him seem rather brutish; two traits that did not sit well with the ‘cultured’ gentry who had ivied through the reign of his more cultivated father.

Furthermore it seemed to go against autocratic, ruling-class propriety to have a crude, UN-gentlemanly, bear of a man ruling a country that – though tumultuous and uneven in its wealth – produced some of the finest architecture, art, music and literature in the 19th century. The late 19th century was a time when Russia was teetering on the brink of revolution, modernization and industrialization, and in keeping the revolution down whilst advancing the country fiscally was something that Alexander Ill did admirably ell, despite his flaws and failed policies.

Though he may not have been a Tsar for the people, nor the ‘Liberator’ his father was he, ensured the security of Russian autocracy for his reign (mostly through repression, at the expense of liberties) therefore making him a successful Tsar overall, contrary to what the statement suggests. Additionally, though conservatism is often painted as a backwards, oppressive political view to hold, it can be argued that for Alexander Ill preserve his rule and economically/industrially bring Russia up to speed – ruling with an iron fist