The clash between modern and classical liberalism: Modern liberalism is inimical to the spirit of classical liberalism

Liberalism in general terms has two cases; one as modern and another as classical, but each has different manifestation on a moral basis. However, it appears that the differences are juxtaposed on the principle of liberalism. Although the fact that modern and classical liberalism’s view are unanimously framed within liberalism, there are distinctions in approach. Classical liberalism is generally known as an ideology protecting individuals and limiting government’s role. The term means old. Conversely, modern liberalism is typically known as a progressive doctrine—an idea of welfare state unlike classical liberalism.

In the light of variation between the lines, it is not easy to draw assumption between modern and classical liberalism of which both of the chains are clashing in the form of ideology. The difference is obvious when it adds to the ideal of moral and cultural progress. The modern liberals are more tied to self-dependence, rather than state sponsorship (or state control) on which this basis there comes to disagreeing with classical liberals.

Modern liberalism, represented by John Stuart Mill as a progressive being, reverses the ambitions and restraints of classical concepts on which defenders of classical liberalism thinks modern liberalism as a menace to the gains and achievements of the classical liberals. With a view of classical side, it is alleged that modern liberals are overcommitted and giving people unrealizable promises which are, to some degree, not relevant to the system of social welfare state. In theory, classical liberalism is found out to be linked up with John Locke, Adam Smith, Alexis de Tocqueville, Friedrich von Hayek, whereas modern liberalism is with John Stuart Mill and von Humboldt and John Rawls.

Given the understanding of why classical liberalism feared modern liberalism being inimical to its intent, the latter’s gains which are thought to be threatened are as the following; firstly, it is the thought which is ideologically or metaphysically overcommitted. Secondly, it is the thought that makes everyone an unreliable promise of a degree of personal fulfillment that welfare state cannot deliver (Alan Ryan 1995). These phenomena are apparently regarded as basic elements opposed to the ways classical liberals hold steadfast, and considering that these modern thoughts undermine the previous success of classical liberalism.  

                                                                                                

For classical liberals, the political theory of modern liberals is seen problematic in a virtual world with the thought—a survey that can be justified unrealistic and not viable. Moreover, the second appraisal is closely linked to fostering individual freedom for others at a high price.

To sum up, in spite of much of the gist expression as mentioned above, the two things threatened by modern liberalism are believed to be the ideological thought which is overcommitted and promises unachievable to deliver as a welfare state. The extensive use of bureaucratic power is failing to give up good things tasked and the system being likely possible for the few educated bourgeoisie but not for most of the population.

Discussion on Michael Freeden's View: Political Theory and Thought

It appears so basic that thought and theory are crucially important to construct a more honest resolution of actions or performance and finally putting things into operation. Both of political theory and thought in the same way are believed to be primarily vital to constructing politics which is in nature related to power. Without the absence of executing theory and thought systematically and effectively, it is likely hardly possible to operate the real politics. This essay, however, will discuss distinctions between political theory and thought and considered in connection with the question of Michael Freeden’s view. 

                                

First and foremost, thought is intertwined with thinking and so, too, is political thought. To be short but in a more constant manner, thought seems to spring up first, then follows theory to experiment the devices or ingredients of thought because the history of political thought itself brings to the study of political theory (Michael Freeden 2005, 113). To assess the nature of political thought, it is hitherto unlikely to be able to create a solution for the issues of politics.

It is kind of inconclusive and ambiguous, yet still unpacks the instrumental tools and attributes of political thought for political debate and controversy in which lots of further theorizing and analyzing is entailed. Consequently, these components therefore essentially constitute thinking about politics. What is more is a traditional pattern of thought does not provide a clear-cut solution either. With that being in thinking or thought process, any necessary improvement cannot be made forward in that situation.

Political theory is more connected to experiment on one hand and theorizing on the other but in a greater detail. Importantly, it is really significant to comprehend what political theory is. Not to mention the definition, this is not sorely a subject of analytic thinking, but is based in a day-to-day experiences and problems encountered and the way we comprehend social functions. Even so all attributes contested inside the sphere of political theory, it is thereof important to gain a sense of the challenging problems, including the structure of how the world is and nation-state behaviors. Political theory is thus employed to review the issues of political thought, and thoroughly identifying the problems of political thinking as easily as its political orientation. In addition to investigating the thought, it ought to be empirical and evident in order to lay out a distinction from just a political idea and called back.

With regards to Michael Freeden’s perspective of political theory is more than a chronicle of political thought is, it is seen that while much of philosophical and historical phenomena is embedded in the tradition and discourse of political sentiment, which is important and enable to unpack any necessary devices or means for political thinking, political theory, however, is a great deal that empirically and evidently analyze the issues of politics that pave the way for political solutions, decisions, means of practice.

Neo-liberalism as Emperor with no clothes by Kevin Rudd, former prime minister of Australia

In analyzing the arguments of Kevin Rudd on neo-liberal ideology depicted as being an emperor with no clothes, it is necessary to know some hints of what neo-liberalism is and what is wrong with its ideology and philosophy. History proves that no single political philosophy, ideology and concept can permanently be perfect and working, but everything, in turn, needs to be molded, modified or transformed into a better one. So too is for human politics and society.

To be short, neo-liberalism was born in 1960s and generally termed as a modern political economic theory favoring privatization, free trade, minimal government intervention in business and reduced public expenditure on social services. It was once a dominant theory over three decades until the great financial crisis in 2008 in which Henry Waxman, who is neo-liberal, admitted the downfall of neo-liberalism. Technically speaking, the ground Kevin Rudd’s attacking neo-liberals seems to be based on what he views the system of neo-liberalism is no longer relevant in this globalization era.

Truth, Kevin Rudd has a dig deep related to his views on neo-liberalism because he effectively pinpointed the grounded facts. But it is good to notice that scholars acknowledged that neo-liberalism had championed for a very long time in the exercise of political dogma. Literally, that sentiment made neo-liberals so confident that their political ideology seemed to be always right and self-correcting. In other words, they took it for granted. 

It is largely learnt that neo-liberals were so convinced of their ideological righteousness of their cause, coupled with a blind unquestioning belief that markets were inherently self-correcting, as a result, they refused to recognize the severity of the problems emerged. The worst scenario is, hardline neo-liberals were not interested because they knew in their hearts they were right (Kevin Rudd 2009). In this regard, it is similarly true with a man, who has self-righteousness in mind, cannot be convinced of others’ opinions and advices. This type of person with such silly belief has very limited sphere. Even worse, after hurting himself by his own actions, he starts learning of the mistakes he committed. However, it has been late and the sun is already set when trying to correct his detrimental behavior and thoughts. 

In broader concern, it is the matter of how self-correcting and ideological righteousness is assessed in a particular variant of neo-liberalism trend that is said to have dominated the international politics over the last 30 years. With that approach, the question remains unabated, albeit there is, in fact, interesting point in terms of economic policy—that is absolutely about free-market fundamentalism. This worked for years, though. 

Summing up his critique, Kevin Rudd seemed so frustrated to see neo-liberals are paying no attention towards the problems emerged, and instead still holding the ideology that did not suit the global order any longer. He apparently adopted the idea of social democratic system and is viewed the solution to preventing liberal capitalism from cannibalizing itself.

Duties are owed to global power: Thomas Pogge's Critique

Glancing at the developing and undeveloped countries, the authoritarian rulers or dictators have strong ties with rich countries and by which, those rulers, however, are received enormous benefits. Nevertheless, the led are still being oppressed and lack of redistribution from their rulers. That is somehow the act of inhumane sense. In addition, there is no system for the poor to link up to in marginalized countries. In the case of China, for instance, China is greatly benefiting from extracting natural resources from Zimbabwe. As consequence, the country supreme leader, Robert Mugabe vastly enjoyed the power and even spent millions of dollar for his medical treatment in Singapore while the majority of the population is under severe poverty line. This is, in my point of view, the case in this question and is believed to be correlated to the thinking of Thomas Pogge on this issue.

To some assumptions; suppose that there is an idea or argument that there is no relationship between the poverty caused by the mismanagement under bad rulers and the rich country that has well-governed system. The deprived countries are poor because of having bad leaders. In contrast, the rich countries are prosperous and run by good governance. So, in theory, there is no relationship between them. However, the fact that there is strong evidence of rich country involved in the course of economic interconnectedness which directly or indirectly helps perpetuate tyrants and rulers grip power. By gripping power at ironic hands, poverty in the those countries will not be enhanced. Opponent of this idea might say that the less the corrupt-cum-bad leaders have economic ties with rich countries, the greater limit they have desecration. That could initiate power-sharing and have, in turn, to be effective in distributing national resources among the population.

In an attempt to understand key fact of what Thomas Pogge believes that the global power are owed to duties is, rulers, not chosen by people in principle, have borrowed money in the name of their country and the eventual debt has to be paid by the population of that country. The effect is obvious here—severe poverty is fueled by local misrule. But such local misrule is fueled, in turn, by global rules that we impose and from which we benefit greatly. There would be, therefore, no duty correlation between the line, should the global power ceases to have economical connectedness and providing financial assistance to the least developing countries on the ground of humanitarian concern.   

On this basis, the global power do not have the duties—duties to eradicate poverty in those countries by providing technical assistance and lobbying greater governance and management skills. In contrast to this claim, global power has duty as long as they do business with leaders of poor countries. Thomas Pogge’s thinking is affirmative in the sense of China’s unabashedly bilateral ties with North Korea.

At last not the least, despite the impose by global powers, they are, at the same time, not opposed to getting resources from the imposed countries that global powers are indirectly injecting poverty in that country and bearing responsibility, too.

Normative Political Theory and Its Thought

Thought, concept, philosophy and theory are fundamentally important to produce a better result of action and performance. So is the political for tackling the political problems in order to conduct the right decision-making for the benefit of the governed and led. Back to history, theories in relation to the political have been appeared centuries ago. However, of many theories, a normative political theory would be of my topic here. So, defining what normative means will help us accelerate a better understanding of what kind of theory. The meaning that makes sense to me is that it is “implying, creating or prescribing a norm or standard which clearly states a standardizing usage”. It is wise to say that the native of terminology is also related to its political concept and theory.

Normative political theory is concerned with the relations between individuals, groups and institutions in civil society and government and its concept is to respond to the existing political structures and problems in way of how the world should be—the better world in a better shape. In other way, the people society deserves a better standard and practice in which questions of what sort of structure or system would be necessary to be applied. Towards norms in response to this practical question, there are key functions within the paradigm of normative political theory which are—justice, rights, liberty and autonomy, equality and private property. These constitute, in fact, power exercising over individuals and groups, ethical obligations towards individuals and groups and government. Those are the concepts and values within the framework of this theory for the aim of offering solutions to political problems. 

To analyze those functions in brief, this theory is constructing on the principle of creating just society which is ultimately concerned with justice that includes principles by which social goods are distributed as essentially embedding this theory in laws, economic structures, social and political attitude and practices. This argument proposes the idea that it would not be possible, without justice system, to establish a fair society. And the rights, as is viewed, are a claim for individual to assert their rights against others and the state. Liberty, concerned of individual freedom from state, allows people enjoy their true self-rule and capability to make their own decisions for their lives. Equality in general view is all about equal rights for all because human beings are equally created and need to be equal. It is understood for the claim of private rights that any individuals should not be prohibited from having an access to goods and property and protection for those assets. These normative claims seem to be against the disproportional structure in political paradigm and solutions provided for that.

In conclusion, normative political theory is, of course, more subjective at some points. And it also shows that this is the way the politics ought to work in order to create just and fair society for all. On other hand, it is an escaped way from bad politics that do not benefit to citizens as a whole.

Hints of Human Rights Liberals

Human rights are, in fact, the most controversial issues in modern era. Until to date, different countries have different interpretations of human rights depending on geographical locations and cultural values and practices. Much of dichotomy in the context of Middle East and Asian countries, the language of human rights is viewed as derived from western ideology and value owing to upholding beliefs that people in those countries are more religious persona. Against though they are, this theory has been widely materialized nowadays. However, this conceptualization of human rights have long been appeared since 16th century. They are, however, widely and highly used after the post era of world war II.

Human rights constitute individuals as a particular kind of political subject free and equal rights-bearing citizens. It is, of course, the rights for every human beings. This particular subject connotes a variety of interpretations by scholars. However, it is of my interest to draw attention to human rights liberal or liberal view on human rights in other hand. Respective of liberal views on human rights, its principle holds equality, liberty and freedom. Logically, its theoretical approach therefore is that you have human rights because you exist and consequently, this view can be extensively justified and defined as belonging to all living creatures accordingly.

Generally speaking, one of the conceptual elements of the human rights hold steadfast by liberals is inviolable rights because one can not interfere within the boundary of other and violate their rights. They value individual rights in establishing relationship between government and citizenry but that consequently limit on government.  

To provide some facts for human rights liberal, these are impetus factors as follows; liberty, individual, universal, equality, inviolable rights, social contract, open society and pluralism, tolerance and diversity. With that being mentioned about the general concept, the prima facie exercise would be that human rights are universal, applied equally to all, bound in society fibric, not isolated and movable and natural. These claims are validated by liberal ideologists.

Equality and freedom perspectives regard that individual freedom is the highest  morality because it is believed that every single of human beings is equally created and equally free. Furthermore, one of the essences of human rights is free speech is a fundamental tenet of liberal thought and vital to human rights liberal. It is, too, important that free speech allows exchange of ideas through debate according to Julia Assange in his mention of human rights between government and individual. Nevertheless, Jack Donnelly argued that we must therefore not fall into the trap of speaking of human rights as demands for rights. In a sense, liberty and freedom, which go hand in hand, seems to be the core value.

To sum up, the universal declaration of human rights is, too, enshrined within the framework of liberal ideology that presents a standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations. At the bottom, people, who conceived the profound principles stated above, are human rights liberal in general.