Since this is my fist entry, I am going to give you all an overview on where I stand politically. This is actually a final paper i had to write for my Modern Political Ideologies class last fall. In the paper we were required to review a couple of other political philosophies simply for review purposes of the class. My actual portrait is contained primarily in the second section of the essay. This essay is actually about 9 pages printed out, so kudos to those of you who press on and read the whole thing.
Thanks and I hope you enjoy this and my future writings! Please feel free to comment or ask questions!
I.
On the political spectrum, conservative views of the religious right are polar opposites from the radical socialist views of the Marxist left. The religious right primarily stands to challenge the rapidly increasing trend of relativism that is growing in the United States, to correct misinterpretation of the first Amendment, and to return a sense of morality to the government. According to Ralph Reed, there are misconceptions of the religious right. Conservative Christians are portrayed as extremists with a “potential for [the] destruction of our political, religious, and legal institutions” as the National Abortion Rights Action League has so delicately put it (185 Reed). Christians simply want a place at the table of politics. They are tired of standing on the sidelines while everyone else makes decisions. “Their objective is citizenship, not theism” (185 Reed). If the Christians of the religious right were more involved in politics, their goals would be a stronger emphasis on preserving and strengthening family; shrinking government; a continuing sense of democracy; decreasing in crime and increasing in public safety; and more successful schools. Another ambition of theirs would be to fight against anti-religious slurs and equate them with gender-based and racial slurs.
Marxism is based, among other things, on the constant struggle between the classes. Marxists believe that as long as there are societies divided into classes, there will always be conflict. This battle between the Bourgeoisie and the Proletariat classes can only end with the abolition of both classes along with the societal institutions that have encouraged them. Marxists trust in Karl Marx’s revolutionary sequence to ultimately dissolve the classes. First, an economic crisis must occur in which the proletariat becomes utterly miserable in their plight as the oppressed working class and they go through a revelation of class-consciousness. Second, the proletariat will then seize State power and rule in their own self-interest. Third, socialism will occur. Marx’s Labor Principle is crucial in this step. “From each according to his ability, to each according to his labor.” Finally, communism will finally begin its reign. The proletariat will abolish themselves and the State will dissolve and the population will live according to Marx’s Needs Principle, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” Marxists believe that the ultimate form of government is the dissolution of the State and social classes into a commune in which everyone takes care of each other.
II.
The most important components of my beliefs are shaped around the basis that all beliefs concerning government, its functions and its actions, are shaped by the various worldviews of the people. I believe that our forefathers spelled out very clearly what a government’s responsibilities are in the Preamble of our Constitution. That the government is to “establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty….” It is the duty of the government to “establish justice” and “punish the transgressors of [the] law to such a degree as may hinder its violation (19 Locke). Government must “insure domestic tranquility” by promoting and maintaining a peaceful atmosphere within its borders so as to avoid civil wars and violent activity among the people. This must be done without transgressing the freedoms and rights of the people. The government is responsible to its people to “provide for the common defense” by creating and sustaining an excellent military force to protect the lives of the people, their rights, and their freedoms. I also believe that the American government has an obligation to come to the aid of other countries who suffer under abusive regimes. I agree with Irving Kristol, that “the United States will always feel obliged to defend, if possible, a democratic nation under attack from non-democratic forces, external or internal.” The government is accountable to people to “promote the general welfare”, but not in the form of welfare checks and handouts. There should be an atmosphere and economic structure created among the people to make it possible for citizens to create and acquire wealth through honest means. The government should have no authority to take money out of my pocket to give it to someone else because they make less than I do. I work hard to get that money into my pocket and I believe I should get to keep it there or take it out of my own accord. Finally, the government is constrained to “secure the blessings of liberty” by guarding the unalienable rights of the people.
Another component of my beliefs is that every government ever established was shaped by the religion of the people. The first Amendment states that, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”, but it is outrageous to think that because there is no State-sponsored religion, that religion has no place in politics and therefore should have no influence upon government. One can try and remove religion from politics, but you can't remove religion from the people. If the population holds religious beliefs, those beliefs will be reflected in their politics.
I believe that freedom is being able to believe as I wish without earthly consequence and do as I please without threatening or violating the rights and/or lives of another. John Stuart Mill’s Harm Principle is a crucial and difficult to understand part of allowing the exercise of freedom. The Harm Principle states, “the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.” At first glance, this principle seems very straightforward, but when forced into the spotlight of specific circumstances, it becomes very controversial and difficult to interpret. Despite its confusing nature, it is one of the best definitions of true freedom that we have. When the government limits our freedoms, we lose our ability and our choice to be responsible with the freedom we’re given and we become servants of the State. Thus, we lose our dignity as functioning, individual members of society.
If I had to label myself as a member of a particular political camp, I would label myself as a neo-classical liberal. I believe that we, as individuals, are to overcome government interference so that we can exercise our right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”. I believe in a positive freedom, which is defined by Thomas Hill Green as, “the liberation of the powers of all men equally for contributions to a common good. No one has a right to do what he will with his own in such a war as to contravene this end” (69 Green). Our freedom is more than the absence of restraint. It is a freedom to do something for the “common good.” I believe that with these freedoms we have a choice to help or not to help our fellow man and the government should not force us to do anything otherwise. If there is a person or family with a need, we should be free to help them out through private enterprises, not through government welfare checks taken from hard-working taxpayers, I stand by William Graham Sumner’s analogy of the forgotten man. “A and B put their heads together to decide what C shall be made to do for D…. C is not allowed a voice in the matter” (119 Sumner) This is exactly what the government does through its welfare programs. It takes money from those who make a certain amount, without their consent, and hands it out to those who don’t make that much or claim a “need” to it. I believe that this taking from the strong will ultimately weaken society, because it is the strong who create and provide the means for the weak to climb the ladder of advancement by providing and creating jobs for the financially weaker of society.
Since I suffer from ideological claustrophobia, I cannot only place myself in the neo-classical liberal ideology. I must also place a portion of myself within the religious right conservative camp. I agree with them in that “most of what [Christians] desire for society can only be achieved through private philanthropy and personal acts of goodness” (186 Reed). As a Christian, my goal is not to force my religious points of view down the throats of others, but to simply be a voice for the Christian American. My faith says that I am to love my neighbor as myself and I believe that the best way I can do this is through actively participating in politics so that I can encourage policies that promote the common good. My objective for participating in politics is not to subject others to my religious beliefs, but simply to exercise “duty – to vote, participate in the political party of [my] choice, lobby elected officials, and even seek public office.” As a Christian with a foot in this camp, I believe in a stronger emphasis on strengthening and preserving families and promoting smaller government. I believe this would have a very positive impact on society. More families would stay together if we elected leaders who would promote policies to instill good family values in our communities and our children. It is a proven fact of life that children develop better when they grow up in an intact family with a mother and father. In a smaller government, “judges would interpret the law rather than legislate from the bench,” (190 Reed) and “the marriage covenant would no longer be the most unstable form of contract in society” (190 Reed). Welfare systems, which tend to discourage people from trying to become more responsible and independent, would be eliminated so hardworking taxpayers could keep more of their money and cause them to be more charitably inclined towards those who are struggling to get by.
I must split my ideological soul a third time and place it into the camp of conservative Kristolism. I believe that, because the United States of America is a large nation with an ideological identity, its national interests extend much further than its geographical borders. Because of this large, ideological identity that we possess as a nation, the United States will always come to the defense of other nations and combat “non-democratic forces, external or internal” that may be plaguing them. I also believe that world government is something that everyone, American or otherwise, should be wary of. “World government is a terrible idea since it can lead to world tyranny” and threatens the national sovereignty of every nation (168 Kristol).
All these beliefs that I hold have been integrated into my life through more than my social standing or my upbringing. They stem from my Christian worldview as well as my family and the literature I read. Of course, being a Christian, the Bible is the greatest source of my political standpoints, but less spiritual ideological heroes of mine would be John Locke and John Stuart Mill. The more influential of these two ideological giants upon my ideological identity is John Locke. His arguments concerning Natural Law are extremely compelling. I, like Locke, believe that “all men are naturally in… a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and personas as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of Nature” (17 Locke). John Stuart Mill’s Harm Principle fits nicely into the philosophy of John Locke and hence fits into a description of my ideology. Both say that we are free to do as we wish as long as it doesn’t invade the rights of another, but they differ on the subject of harm upon oneself. I agree with Locke in saying that we “[have] not liberty to destroy [ourselves], or so much as any creature in [our] possession” (17 Locke). Mill’s Harm Principle concerns harming oneself only in the context of being “young persons below the age which the law may fix.... [and] those who are still in a state to require being taken care of by others must be protected against their own actions as well” (36 Mill). He argues that because the “individual is sovereign” over “his own body and mind”, his only constraint in exercising his freedoms is to not harm others in his actions, but he is free to harm himself since he is sovereign over his body. Locke recognizes that, because of the law of Nature, although the individual may be sovereign over mental and bodily actions, he does not have the liberty to “destroy himself.”
My beliefs differ most greatly from those of Karl Marx and his followers. My initial reason for this is the blatant foundation of atheism that is typical of Marxist societies. This is apparent within the Communist Manifesto when Marx and Engels state that, “Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order of things” (275 Marx and Engels). Religion, which Marx called “the opiate of the people,” falls within the category of “social” order, and I cannot stand for something that demands an “overthrow” of one of the freedoms I hold most dear. I also don’t like the distributive wealth ideals that are encouraged by Marx. I hold to the principles laid down by William Graham Sumner, Adam Smith, and Milton Friedman, that taking from the strong only weakens the rest of society, that we need to have a “laissez faire” approach to the economy, and that maintaining a free market helps to prevent political tyranny by dispersing political power. I also disagree with Marxists that class conflict is evitable. Marx’s revolutionary sequence seems like it would be a nice idea, but it doesn’t seem plausible. When the proletariat rises up to overthrow the bourgeoisie, it would seem that the positions of the two classes would only switch and there would be a new bourgeoisie made up of the recently promoted proletariat and a new proletariat made up of the overthrown bourgeoisie. Seeing as this revolutionary sequence has never truly been completed, it appears to be nothing more than an endless cycle of overthrowing the ruling class only to create a new one.
As for my similarities with Ralph Reed and his accurate description of the Religious Right Conservatives, I wish I could take credit for writing that article. I completely agree with him on all his stances concerning Christians and government. I agree with the first Amendment and that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”, but I don’t think that Christians should be barred from being involved with politics simply because of what they believe. It used to be that Christians were encouraged to be active in politics and atheists discouraged, because they had no higher being to answer to. I am not so radical as to suggest that Christians should take over politics and government, but I am tired of standing “on the sidelines watching everyone else play the game” as Reed so succinctly put it (185 Reed).
My Christian worldview is an incredibly powerful factor in shaping my political worldview. My politics grow out of my theology which I find evidence for, not only in Scripture, but in the documents written and signed by our forefathers. I believe our government has a duty to its own people, as well as the people of the rest of the world, to protect their God-given rights and promote freedom and democracy abroad.
