Welfare LiberalismEssay Preview: Welfare LiberalismReport this essayLiberalisms generally subscribe to an ideological platform that the individual is sovereign as John Stuart Mill describes it, and the rights of the individual are infinitely more important than the rights of the government. The debate with liberalisms seems to arise from the fact that it does not pay particular attention to the role the individual plays as a member of society – a society that cannot function without unity, self-preservation, and general identification by those members of their responsibility to the overall welfare of society. One can deduce that liberalisms generally do not give as much attention to this notion of a “social fabric” as outlined by Edmund Burke but that is not to say that liberalisms overall goal is not the welfare of society as a whole.
[Page 3]
It is common in the United States to see both a left-wing politics of individualism and conservatism in the popular movements of American history including a “Liberator in the Streets” and as well as the Occupy movement in the United States.
[Page 4]
A liberalism without political power or even an independent economic policy is far more likely than a liberal socialism to yield economic and social gains. However, a conservative social policy is not the first or last path to a social democratic transition. Rather, “a liberal state is not only possible but in some ways preferable to a conservative one” (p. 17).
[Page 5]
The “Liberator in the Streets” movement was first organized by an anti-authoritarian group in Massachusetts in the 1960s, and had been under police surveillance in those days and by that time had been a political movement. But the 1960s came and went, and the movement was much popular, and eventually became a political party with a specific goal, though not a party to be broken. Indeed the “Liberator in the Streets” movement found itself at the head of a major conservative political movement in the ’60s, which eventually changed the political map of American academia, the world and eventually politics under the leadership of George McGovern. The anti-authoritarian movement grew out of this, however, which, like so much of the Right wing, had nothing to offer but its own agenda, including a social democratic and political transition. The Right Wing’s goals was to expand public funding for programs like Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), to extend welfare for the poor, to make it easier for many on the low and middle classes to find jobs, and to reduce the income gap. The movement was founded in 1960 and was led by Charles C. Biederman, who served as President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops in the late 1960s. Biederman, later in his role as President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, was also a founding member of the Council of Economic Advisers in the ’70s.
The Rightwing became the dominant political party in the ’80s due to the growing conservatism of the “left” among members of the conservative Left. This was true partly because it was an economic power that had emerged from the left in the 1960s and ’70s that had not been represented by the “left’s” liberal or conservative ideologies and it was also more socially centrist and liberal than its left cousins. The Left’s main success was that it was not only able to dominate and support its own left in the Left before there was any more “liberal” political parties, it was also able to create conservative party affiliation within the political political parties of other left-leaning countries, particularly France and South Korea in the ’90s.
The Left’s success was mainly because it was able to build a political platform in which it could offer support of and critique of political “radicalism” that had emerged in the US during that period. In addition, it was able to produce such a political program through large-scale government campaigns of large scale grassroots mobilizations (e.g., grassroots mobilization of 1 million people).
The left’s successful social program was particularly successful in that it had its own economic system; it was successful at transforming a large portion
While neoclassical liberalism tends to recognize that society and the individual are benefited by a smaller federal government and less government intrusion on the individual, it usually favors economic competition within society as a whole. Neoclassical liberals generally believe that economic competition and overall economic stability will enhance the standard of living of all individuals. Under this ideology, one could assume that by increasing the standard of living of all individuals, society as a whole has benefited thus ensuring that this ideology does not neglect the authority of the state in general. However, one could also argue that neoclassical liberalism dismisses the authority of the federal government in some ways by attempting to minimize it as much as possible. Edmund Burke would certainly argue that neoclassical liberalism does not focus enough on the social unity needed to facilitate a thriving society. He would also argue that this ideology dismisses the nature of humans to be “self-interestedand short-sighted, which is precisely why they need the power of government to restrain them and keep their passions in check.” Edmund Burke would find many flaws with neoclassical liberalism on the basis that it does not promote the general welfare of society but rather focuses on the individual rights to the extent that it neglects the “social fabric” of a society. This “social fabric” as Burke metaphorically dubs it, is an organic view which contends that “individuals are related to one another and to the society in the same way that the heart and eyes and arms are related to the body – not as separate and isolated units but as interdependent members of a living organism.” This contrasts to a view of atomistic conception of humans which claims that individuals are “a loose collection of self-contained atoms who are no more connected to one another than marbles on a tray.” Burke would argue that this thought is wrong on many levels including the natural dependence of humans on other humans. It also completely disregards, in Burkes view, the necessary traditions and customs of a culture by promoting individual freedom to the extent that it ignores these critical pieces of that which makes the society function and prosper.
Burke would also argue that neoclassical liberalism allows too much personal freedom without identifying the consequences of misunderstanding the negative impact some of these freedoms can have on society as a whole. He believes there should be constraints to individual freedom when he feels that it inhibits the effectiveness and productivity of society. But neoclassical liberals do not distinctly neglect the authority of the social order as much as they use the route of individual freedom to benefit the overall society. They use more pragmatic methods to obtain the most benefit for every individual in the society.
Now to examine the second distinct school of liberalism, one must differentiate between welfare liberalism and neoclassical liberalism so as to have the marked differences that separate the two distinctions. Neoclassical liberals and welfare liberals similarly agree that individual liberty is key to a prosperous society, and as the ideology itself alludes to, individual freedom supersedes governmental supremacy. But the distinction between the two schools of thought is that welfare liberals generally subscribe to a more active federal government. They feel that government can help to rectify some of the injustices faced by people who are less fortunate than others. They desire to use the government as a “positive force” to promote overall equality while still maintaining individual freedom. Welfare liberals typically distinguish between negative and positive freedom – as outlined by T.H. Green – “[f]reedom is not merely a matter of being left alone; it is the positive power or ability to do something.” He believed there to be “formidable obstacles” to freedom that we must look to actively overcome in order to allow true freedom of all individuals.
Now, as discussed previously, neoclassical liberalism supports minimal government involvement to ensure that the overall society is benefited the most through a lassiez-faire economy and more overall productivity. Welfare liberalism conversely believes that more government involvement to alleviate obstacles to success is necessary for complete freedom and acceptance. Burke would argue that both liberalisms do not give enough attention to the order and authority of the government. He supported a true natural aristocracy, one that he believed would not be corrupted by the politicians pandering to the whims of the citizens, but an aristocracy that would enact a traditional order and ensure that change was undergone slowly and