Close Window types of political ideology From: Encyclopedia of American Political Parties and Elections. In the contemporary world of U.S. politics, liberal ideology is based on a positive view of human nature (i.e., a belief that people are driven by an innate moral sense) and a desire to overcome societal ills through collective action. Liberal ideology holds that government action should reflect the best qualities of human nature and should actively work to improve society. Modern liberals view government as the primary tool of collective action and, consequently, as a positive agent for a wide range of societal concerns (e.g., civil rights, education, environmental protection, public welfare). Today, many Americans who possess these beliefs eschew the term liberal in favor of the term progressive because of a commonplace perception that modern liberalism is tainted by connections to overly large and wasteful government. The term liberalism, the foundation for liberal ideology, has its beginnings in the period of Western thought known as the Enlightenment. During this era, a diverse set of political thinkers established a philosophy that stressed individual rights and personal liberty. This philosophy came to be known as classic liberalism. John Locke, an English political philosopher of the time, argued that in a legitimate political system, people are ultimately self-governing because individuals give up some of their freedom to a government for the collective good but retain ultimate sovereignty based on the ownership of their individual rights. In this formulation, government should play only a limited regulatory role and allow the mechanisms of free enterprise to function so as not to unduly limit the rights of citizens who might be disadvantaged by economic regulation. In the years following the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, many could lay claim to the ideas of classic liberalism. The concepts of individual freedom and a generally laissez-faire approach to economic policy were widely embraced by political parties and candidates from otherwise diverse regions of the country that were often split by other issues. However, by the 1880s, several related factors caused a major rent in the fabric of classic American liberal thought. The economic and political power of a small set of industrialists became increasingly obvious as the industrial revolution bore the fruit of great wealth for some Americans. Additionally, the concentration of political power and outright corruption during this time became increasingly evident. Two social movements, populism and progressivism, spurred a drive to use government as a way of solving public problems. The New Deal of the 1930s and its progeny of the 1960s, the Great Society, used direct action by the federal government to attempt to right a host of societal and economic wrongs. These popular programs did not bear much resemblance to the ideas of classic liberalism, but because the policy makers saw themselves as the descendants of this line of thinking, they could justly call themselves liberal. The social, political, and economic upheavals of the late 1960s and early 1970s began to put liberalism on the defensive. Some wondered if government were not contributing to seemingly intractable problems such as poverty and racial division. Those holding this 1 of 5 9/26/10 5:12 PM
position might have attempted to wrest the title of liberal away from those who held it by arguing that they were nearer to the beliefs of classic liberals. Instead, parts of classic liberalism have found renewed champions in the modern conservative and libertarian movements, while modern liberalism has largely been rechristened as progressivism by its present-day adherents. In the spatial representation of ideology, featuring liberalism on the left and conservatism on the right, those possessing a moderate ideology populate the middle ground between these two poles. Ideally, moderate ideology mixes elements of conservatism and liberalism into a blend of values, beliefs, attitudes, and positions on a wide range of issues. Because of the strong relationship between ideology and political party affiliation in the United States, those holding a moderate ideology are likely to lack a clear and solid connection to either of the two major political parties. In the jargon of modern electoral politics, such individuals are often called swing voters, independents, or undecided voters. Because the nation was founded on a belief that factions and parties were suspect and even potentially dangerous because of their tendency to divide the public, the notion of political independence and moderation is an old and in many ways attractive one. George Washington's warning about the "baneful spirit of party" from his farewell address is a touchstone for much of the nation's subsequent experience with political parties; they have often been useful, loved by some but viewed with a degree of suspicion by many. In the 19th century, party affiliation grew steadily as the American party system matured and the electorate widened by the expansion of suffrage. The Progressive movement, spawned by what many viewed as the corrupting influence of overly powerful political parties, won many reforms, such as direct primaries and the creation of the civil service system, that weakened the power of parties in the United States and, in so doing, limited their ability to attract and hold the loyalty of citizens. In the post World War II era, the continued weakening of parties and the increasing importance of mass communications allowed candidates to run as individuals rather than as the representatives of particular parties. Additionally, an increase in political cynicism, traceable to a series of major crises in political leadership, such as Watergate and Iran-Contra, coupled with a heightened aggressiveness in the news media, helped further distance many Americans from an affiliation with any political party and toward a stance of political moderation. Recent polls indicate that more than a third of Americans identify themselves as moderates, about the same number of people who have no party affiliation. Traditionally, the moderate-independent was considered the ideal voter, someone who weighed the issues and did not vote on rather irrational connections to a party. In this light, moderates rise above the pettiness of the ideological warfare of partisan politics. In reality, moderates who express independence from partisanship often "lean" toward one party on a consistent basis. "Pure" independents, those who truly do not lean, are among the least politically active members of the electorate. The increase in independence from parties and the associated rise of moderate ideology complicate contemporary politics and governance. Candidates must appeal to the liberal or conservative base of their parties in order to win nominations through primary elections largely populated by voters with strong ideologies and then shift to a general election mode that will appeal to moderates with mixed or weak ideologies. Once in office, elected officials must build wide support for policies by appealing to moderates and ideologues alike. These are difficult tasks that are likely to become more problematic as the rise of independence from parties produces a more ideologically mixed electorate. A conservative ideology is one based on belief in equality of opportunity, freedom 2 of 5 9/26/10 5:12 PM
expressed as personal liberty, and a preference for private rather than public institutions. In this general regard, the ideology of conservatism has its roots in classic liberalism because the two share key elements concerning the role and power of government. Essentially, conservatism is structured around two core themes: 1) Smaller government is better government, particularly in the area of social policy, and 2) individual liberty outweighs the need for social and economic equality. This form of conservative thought, closely associated with the Republican presidential nominee in 1964, Barry Goldwater, focused heavily on the reduction of the federal government's social welfare programs and the return of political and economic discretion to the states. The perceived failing of the competing ideology of the time, liberalism, with its emphasis on the use of governmental power to ameliorate public problems, was the target for Goldwater and his contemporary conservatives. Although he lost the election by a significant margin, Goldwater's ideas were carried forward, albeit in moderated form, by Republican Richard Nixon's successful presidential bid in 1968. The Nixon administration produced a mixed set of results, with some actions and policies reflecting a devolving of power back to the states and others markedly expanding the scope of federal power. In 1980, the conservative movement had another seminal election that gave Ronald Reagan the chance to redefine the role of government and, ultimately, the meaning of modern conservatism. The Reagan administration made efforts to devolve power to the states by decreasing the role played by the federal government in a host of social welfare programs, while at the same time dramatically increasing the size of military spending. He also tried to limit federal regulations of business and industry. In these ways, the "Reagan Revolution" of the 1980s was an extension of the philosophy espoused by Goldwater and others in the late 1950s and early 1960s. However, conservative ideology had undergone a shift in the late 1970s and early 1980s that produced a split within the movement. As the "culture wars" began, social conservatives, largely evangelical Christians from the now Republican-dominated South, exerted a major influence on the redefinition of conservatism. These conservatives were generally comfortable with limiting the federal government's social welfare and regulation activities, but also sought the enactment of a social agenda aimed at undercutting or eliminating laws and programs that supported what they considered immoral activities, such as abortion and gay marriage. Social conservatives saw little contradiction in their desire to use the power of government, by executive order, law making, or even proposed amendments to the U.S. Constitution, to achieve their social goals. Economic conservatives, often more socially moderate and less inclined to share the moralistic orientation of their socially conservative brethren, found that their place in American politics was becoming marginalized as social conservatives made gains in the Republican Party. Recently, President George W. Bush attempted to redefine, yet again, the meaning of conservatism by creating his own "compassionate" variant that emphasized the role of religious organizations as a means of providing social welfare services. Additionally, neoconservatism, a brand of the core ideology associated with an interventionist foreign policy, has become a potent strain of thought in the modern conservative movement. Radicalism has long been part of American politics. A nation born in revolution has kept a certain fondness for direct action while at the same time holding revulsion toward less 3 of 5 9/26/10 5:12 PM
romantic acts of political violence. When a person or group is said to hold a radical ideology, the larger public views the beliefs and values held by the individual or group as outside the norm of what is socially, economically, or politically acceptable at a given time. Social movements and some political parties have been thought to hold radical ideologies. Radicalism is often used synonymously with extremism, in the sense that the goals, beliefs, strategies, and tactics of individuals and groups holding these views and who favor unconventional modes of achieving them are often viewed as a danger to the existing political, social, and economic order. Simply put, radical and radicalism are pejorative terms that generally indicate something that is unwelcome and even potentially disruptive. Because most Americans view contemporary political ideology as existing across a spectrum from left to right, radical ideology and those who espouse views connected to radicalism are often labeled as being from the "far left" or "far right," meaning they are very liberal or very conservative in their ideological dispositions. This view of radicalism assumes two things: first, that political ideology is neatly split into two wings with a large middle ground of ideological moderation, and second, within each of these wings there is a median or average "liberal" and "conservative." It is within the context of this framework that an individual or group's ideas and actions are deemed radical or not. Given the inexact nature of the boundaries of this spatial framework of ideology, differences of opinion are bound to exist over just which groups and individuals have radical ideologies. For example, many in the widely segregated United States saw the Civil Rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s as possessing radical or even revolutionary goals and beliefs. In the 1850s, many viewed the newly formed Republican Party as a political aggregation based on the radical concept of abolition. Today, the Civil Rights movement and the antislavery genesis of the Republican Party are commonly seen as hallmarks of social and political progress. Beyond pure anarchy and political violence for its own sake, the concept of ideological radicalism is difficult to map with precision because it is so often dependent on the cultural expectations about political goals and behavior at specific points in time. As time and expectations change, so does the perception of radicalism. In contemporary U.S. politics, applying the label of radical to a person or to a group's ideology is often an attempt to demonize the individual or group's goals and the strategies and tactics used toward reaching those ends. In electoral politics, candidates often seek advantage with voters by describing their opponents as extremist members of their parties. Policy makers also use this method to gain support for their positions by attempting to demonstrate how widely a policy deviates from the norm. Dionne, E. J. They Only Look Dead: Why Progressives Will Dominate the Next Political Era. New York: Touchstone, 1996; Euchner, Charles. Extraordinary Politics: How Protest and Dissent Are Changing American Democracy. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 1996; Huntington, Samuel P. "The United States." In Michel Crozier, Samuel P. Huntington, and Joji Watnanuki, eds., The Crisis of Democracy. New York: New York University Press, 1975; Kristol, Irving. Neo-Conservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea. New York: Free Press, 1995; Pateman, Carole. Participation and Democratic Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970. Rawls, John. Political Liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press, 1993; Schlesinger, Arthur M. The Vital Center: The Politics of Freedom. Somerset, N.J.: Transaction Publishers, 1997. 4 of 5 9/26/10 5:12 PM
Text Citation: Barberio, Richard P. "types of political ideology." In Sabato, Larry J., and Howard R. Ernst. Encyclopedia of American Political Parties and Elections. New York: Facts On File, Inc., 2006. American History Online. Facts On File, Inc. http://www.fofweb.com/activelink2.asp? ItemID=WE52&iPin=EAPPE0177&SingleRecord=True (accessed September 26, 2010). How to Cite Return to Top Record URL: http://www.fofweb.com/activelink2.asp? ItemID=WE52&iPin=EAPPE0177&SingleRecord=True 5 of 5 9/26/10 5:12 PM