Contemporary Ideologies Further to the Political Left Learning Outcomes By the end of this section, you will be able to: Discuss the ideology of the New Left and define a number of key movements within it. Assess the relationship among New Left movements. Assess the relationship between the New Left and the center left. In the 1960s, a new form of liberalism emerged in Western countries. The New Left is a somewhat vague amalgam of movements on the left of the political spectrum, united in the belief that the center left is insufficiently progressive. The major elements of the New Left are outlined below, but keep in mind that the exact line between the center left and the New Left is unclear and in flux. Multiculturalism One of the earliest New Left movements was multiculturalism . Multiculturalists argue that all or almost all of the cultures of the world are deserving of respect and that many individuals derive a great sense of their identity and self-worth through their membership in a particular culture. On these two bases, multiculturalists argue that contemporary governments should not seek to impose any society-wide cultural norms beyond the minimal norms to which all or almost all cultures already subscribe. A corollary of multiculturalist thought is that contemporary states do not need a common underlying culture in order to function effectively. Instead, multiculturalists tend to argue that a diversity of cultures enriches a society. Andrew Heywood, Political Ideologies: An Introduction (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012). The all-women percussion band Batala celebrates Afro-Brazilian music and culture. (credit: “Women Percussion Band” by Pabak Sarkar/Flickr, CC BY 2.0) For example, many multiculturalists in countries with large numbers of recent Muslim immigrants, such as Canada and Germany, see Islam as endorsing socially beneficial values such as sustained religious charity, the search for Ijma or consensus, the flourishing of family life, the protection of the poor, and a focus on the unity of humanity. Multiculturalists hold up values such as these as evidence of the ways in which historically non-Western cultures can enrich Western societies. Others argue that too intense a focus on multiculturalism may be incompatible with traditional center-left thought. John Rawls (1921–2002), who is generally seen as a defender of the center left, argues in his influential work A Theory of Justice (1971) that a stable regime requires that the people share a significant proportion of liberal democratic values intrinsic to the center-left ideology. Still, some multiculturalists believe so strongly in the benefit of allowing groups to retain their cultural identity that they contend that even cultures that may reject prevalent Western norms—for example, allowing women to work—should not be condemned. They argue that these cultural values are important aspects of their members’ identity and that they pose no serious threat to the larger society. Environmentalism Environmentalism, a movement that aims to preserve and protect the natural environment, gained prominence in the 1970s due in part to concerns about overpopulation and shrinking world food supplies. The environmentalism movement built on earlier conservation movements, and after the Green Revolution of the 1970s, which saw agricultural production grow exponentially due to pesticide control and new farming techniques, environmentalists turned their attention to global warming. Environmentalists point to the now widely accepted research findings of a broad array of scientists that show the world’s climate is in a crisis condition that imperils not only animal biodiversity but also the well-being of human populations around the world. The environmentalist movement argues that the center-left focus on maintaining private property and limiting government prevents it from adequately addressing this climate crisis. In governments around the world, the Green Party advocates for policies that promote and preserve the well-being of the natural environment. (credit: “Green Jobs – a Way Out of the Crisis” by greensefa/Flickr, CC BY 2.0) Other environmentalists have gone even further from the center left. Center-left democratic liberalism has its roots in the concern for individual human rights. Some contemporary environmentalists advance the concept of animal rights, a position pioneered by the Australian philosopher Peter Singer . This position argues that nonhuman animals have rights that governments must also protect. Animal rights activists see the center left, by contrast, as narrowly speciesist, or unjustly concerned primarily with human well-being. Heywood, Political Ideologies , 264. Feminism Another major aspect of the New Left is its commitment to feminism , and here the lines between the center left and the New Left once again become blurry—as do the lines between the New Left, the center right, and classical liberalism. Feminism emerged as a well-developed and distinct ideology in the late 18th and the 19th centuries, championed with special force by Mary Wollstonecraft and John Stuart Mill in England and advocates such as Elizabeth Cady Stanton in the United States. Efforts in the 19th and 20th centuries such as the women’s suffrage movement and the movements to secure women’s rights—for example, the right to enter into contracts and to work in certain professions—helped expand the ideology of democratic liberalism and bolster first-wave feminism . Contemporary supporters of classical liberalism, who, along with those in the center right, see the equality of women in the workforce as the natural extension of their commitment to individual rights, affirm these gains. Naomi Schoenbaum, “When Liberals and Conservatives Agree on Women’s Rights,” Politico , March 31, 2015, https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/03/supreme-court-pregnancy-discrimination-coalition-116559/. The publication of Betty Friedan ’s The Feminine Mystique in 1963 marked the popular emergence of second-wave feminism . In its first three years in print, The Feminine Mystique , which argued for the existence of a systemic sexism that taught women that their place was in the home and that any deviation from that role was unnatural, sold three million copies. Robert McCrum, “The 100 Best Nonfiction Books: No 18 – The Feminine Mystique by Betty Friedan (1963),” Guardian , May 30, 2016, https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/may/30/feminine-mystique-100-best-nonfiction-books-robert-mccrum. Second-wave feminism focused primarily on bodily freedoms and safety surrounding sex and personal relationships, especially the right to abortion , the right to divorce without having to show cause (a change in divorce laws that developed in the 1970s), the prevention of domestic violence, and the critique of pornography as dehumanizing of women. Betty Friedan (second from left) converses with members of the National Organization for Women (NOW) in the 1960s. (credit: “(Left to Right): Billington; Betty Naomi Goldstein Friedan (1921-2006); Barbara Ireton (1932-1998); and Marguerite Rawalt (1895-1989)” by Smithsonian Institution/Flickr, Public Domain) In the early 1990s, third-wave feminism emerged, developing claims of embedded cultural patriarchy and working to upend what it sees as patriarchal norms in the wider society. Recently, third-wave feminists—potentially the vanguard of a fourth wave, according to some theorists—have condemned the concept of a rigid gender binary in favor of a more fluid conception of gender; have advocated to reduce or eliminate differences between men and women in all areas of public life, including the military; and have endorsed sex positivity as a way for women to express sexual autonomy and to eliminate cultural norms of female sexual self-control. R. Claire Snyder, “What Is Third Wave Feminism? A New Directions Essay,” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 34, no. 1 (Autumn 2008), https://doi.org/10.1086/588436; Constance Grady, “The Waves of Feminism, and Why People Keep Fighting over Them, Explained,” Vox, July 20, 2018, https://www.vox.com/2018/3/20/16955588/feminism-waves-explained-first-second-third-fourth. Second-wave feminism is arguably now a firmly rooted aspect of the center left. The degree to which third-wave feminism is now considered part of the center left remains a topic of debate. Critical Race and Gender Theory Advocates of critical race and gender theory seek to expand not only rights but also equity by compensating past victims of injustice through law and public policy in order to achieve a current condition that is judged to be fairer. For example, because Black Americans experienced discrimination in public services in the past, the Biden administration proposed in 2021 that the federal government issue special equity grants to Black Americans and other racial minorities in certain sectors, such as farming. See April Simpson, “Will Biden’s Relief Package Break Black Farmers’ ‘Cycle of Debt’?,” The Center for Public Integrity, March 19, 2021, https://publicintegrity.org/health/coronavirus-and-inequality/biden-relief-package-black-farmers-cycle-of-debt/. An additional aspect of critical race and gender theory involves epistemology —that is, the way one comes to know. In their understanding of epistemology, critical race and gender theorists draw on the views of feminist philosopher Allison Jagger , who argues in her pioneering 1983 work Feminist Politics and Human Nature that oppressors (in Jagger’s discussion, men) experience the world as favorable to their unjust desires and are therefore unmotivated to consider alternative points of view. The oppressed, on the other hand, have to cultivate both an understanding of their own condition and an understanding of their oppressors’ perspective in order to develop strategies of resistance. Consequently, they must develop a wider knowledge of the world, and thus their viewpoint is epistemologically richer and allows them to develop greater knowledge than those who oppress. Critical race and gender theorists use these ideas to argue that the oppressed tend to have clearer and surer knowledge than do those of the dominant race (Whites) and gender (cisgender men). Additionally, critical race and gender theory places emphasis on intersectionality , or the belief that individuals may have characteristics that make them members of more than one oppressed group and that these groups intersect, exacerbating the oppression such individuals experience. For example, although feminism has focused on women’s oppression, critical gender theory argues that Black and Hispanic women, whose identity exists at the intersection of race and gender, experience oppression to a deeper degree. In turn, some critical race and gender theorists, such as Nora Berenstain , argue that the understanding of society that Black and Hispanic women express is more epistemologically insightful than the insights of other groups Nora Berenstain, “Epistemic Exploitation,” Ergo 3, no. 22 (2016): 578, https://doi.org/10.3998/ergo.12405314.0003.022. and that equity may require special programs available only to Black or Hispanic women. Kimberlé Crenshaw at TED + Animation Columbia Law School and UCLA Law School professor Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw is a lawyer and critical race theorist. She coined the term intersectionality in 1989. Last, critical race theorists hold that the oppression exacted against minority communities, especially racial minorities, is structural in nature. They argue that structural racism manifests regardless of personal racist intent. An action or decision can be racist simply because it is taken within a legal, political, and cultural context that has been shaped by the past racist decisions of others. These past racist actions, critical race theorists maintain, have become a part of the fabric of the environment that shapes how people act—that is, unless individuals consciously act in ways that subvert the accepted standards, norms, and beliefs that the legal, political, and cultural system has created. Critical race and gender theorists argue that merit-based college admissions that rely in part on standardized testing are an example of systemic racism . Although the tests attempt to be race neutral, using them makes one complicit in racism because racist decisions in the past led to substandard minority schools (through school segregation ), family environments not conducive to learning (through segregated housing laws and the over-policing of minority communities), and lower income levels (through discriminatory employment practices). Therefore, to expect test scores to be a fair measure of worthiness for admission is to participate, even if unintentionally, in a system still marred by the continuing legacy of previous racist actions, and thus is to think in a racist way. Contemporary Socialism Adherents of socialism promote transitioning to a socialist economy, arguing that any changes ushered in by the center left will be inadequate in a capitalist economic system. The goal of socialism is to remake society to ensure more or less equal material wealth, especially the equal possession of the goods that individuals need to reach their full potential. Socialist thinkers argue that a cooperative and communal social existence is achievable and that, given this achievability, there is little reason not to pursue it. Canadian philosopher G. A. Cohen argued that to realize a society based on cooperative sharing would require the slow but persistent building of well-established political structures in which people can channel natural instincts and aspirations for cooperative living. Although they are critical of the center left, contemporary socialists generally reject the communist ideology advanced in China and other communist nations such as Cuba and Vietnam. Socialists argue that “no man is an island” and, therefore, that the material success of any individual or group is the result of innumerable societal supports. Hence, socialism judges as unproblematic high rates of taxation by which some of the wealth of those with the most money is transferred to those in need; without societal support, the wealthy would never have acquired so much wealth in the first place—a conclusion that takes on added force in terms of inherited wealth and structural advantages enjoyed at birth. In this way, socialists call for an activist state that aims to move society toward high rates of equality and human fulfillment. Contemporary democratic socialism seeks to combine all or most of the New Left positions with a renewed appreciation of socialist ideology. “What Is Democratic Socialism?,” Democratic Socialists of America, last modified June 9, 2021, https://www.dsausa.org/about-us/what-is-democratic-socialism/. This movement appears to be making some progress in American electoral politics, as evidenced by the popularity of Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez , a democratic socialist representing New York’s 14th Congressional District in the US House of Representatives. It is also a major political ideology in Scandinavia and in areas of Latin America. In addition to advancing New Left ideas such as environmentalism, second- and third-wave feminism, and critical race and gender theory, democratic socialists question the center-left attachment to capitalism . Ibid. It is not enough, democratic socialists argue, to let the free market address certain needs, such as health care, on the condition that the government will provide a safety net for those with the very least economic resources, funded with tax revenues from the wealthiest in society. Instead, the very idea that health care should be provided through the free market—by, for example, individuals purchasing health insurance from private for-profit health insurance companies—needs to be rethought. Most democratic socialists argue that the government should administer and dispense health care to each person on an equal basis. The state, acting on behalf of society, should assert a right to take ownership of private companies that serve critical needs. For example, private companies that serve the energy needs of the country should be state-run if they fail to invest adequately in renewable energy resources to meet the challenge of climate change. Democratic socialists make a similar argument concerning private housing companies that fail to invest in affordable housing units. Although often expressed only as a last resort, democratic socialists assert the right in principle for government to take ownership of privately owned companies, either temporarily or permanently, to ensure that they develop the desired output. Noting, for example, that a person who is paid the federal minimum wage in the United States does not earn enough to keep a family above the poverty line , David Cooper, “Raising the Federal Minimum Wage to $15 by 2024 Would Lift Pay for Nearly 40 Million Workers,” Economic Policy Institute, February 5, 2019, https://www.epi.org/publication/raising-the-federal-minimum-wage-to-15-by-2024-would-lift-pay-for-nearly-40-million-workers/. democratic socialists are willing to require companies to offer not merely a minimum wage but what advocates call a “ living wage ,” guaranteeing to each employee a higher pay rate by imposing broad mandates on private employers. As of 2018, countries such as France, Portugal, and New Zealand had minimum wages well over 50 percent of the median full-time salary in those countries. Note that some countries, including Italy and Sweden, do not have a minimum wage. (source: OECD; attribution: Copyright Rice University, OpenStax, under CC BY NC-SA 4.0 license) Democratic socialism also expresses skepticism regarding the importance of national borders, seeing easier entry for immigrants into a country as a matter of meeting the human rights of people in need. Despite these criticisms of the center left, democratic socialists, like democratic liberals and many earlier socialists, reject Marxist notions of violent revolution and the need for a workers’ dictatorship and Maoist ideas of a one-party state controlled by a communist party. They instead advance their agenda through the democratic political process. Indeed, democratic socialists emphasize how their movement empowers individuals to use their political influence to demand change. Community organizing and political mobilization play important roles in marshaling the political influence of those whom society has marginalized. Other forms of socialism include the ideology of the contemporary Venezuelan government mentioned at the beginning of this chapter. This ideology is alternately referred to as Bolivarianism, or Bolivarian socialism—after the early 19th-century leader Simón Bolívar , who led successful revolutions in Latin America against the Spanish Empire—and Chavismo , after presidents Chávez and Maduro , and it can be defined both by what it opposes and what it supports. Chavismo opposes what scholars call neoliberalism . Neoliberalism is usually defined as the efforts advanced by international institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank , and supported by most of the world’s largest industrialized nations, to encourage developing countries to adopt a free market, open their economies to international trade, and avoid significant inflation. Along with these economic goals, neoliberalism encourages respect for the right of political participation and other individual rights such as freedom of speech and religion. Chávez and Maduro see neoliberalism as outside pressures that amount to foreign rule. So, like a new Simón Bolívar, Chávez and Maduro see themselves as freeing Latin America from foreign control in the form of pressures advanced by international financial institutions. Following the Bolivarian socialist view, Chávez and Maduro want to lead Venezuela to chart its own course, utilizing its own natural resources, refusing offers of loans from institutions such as the World Bank, and rejecting criticism of its political processes. Exploiting Venezuela’s national wealth through state ownership of major industries such as the petroleum industry, they seek policies that redistribute income and create a generous social safety net. Brigham Young University professor Kirk A. Hawkins notes that, convinced that their model is just and in the best interests of the majority of Venezuelans, they seek to ensure broad support among the masses through control over the media and the judiciary, risking the violation of human rights. Kirk A. Hawkins, “Chavismo, Liberal Democracy, and Radical Democracy,” Annual Review of Political Science 19 (2016): 311–319, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-072314-113326. Globalism and Indigenous Federalism Both economic libertarianism and democratic socialism de-emphasize national borders. As an ideology, globalism focuses on this more international emphasis, calling for either enhancing the power of existing global institutions, such as the United Nations , or creating new international bodies with effective governing authority. Such international institutions have both concrete and symbolic importance. Concretely, they can mobilize forces around the world to address global issues such as climate change , economic inequalities among nations, and the repression of minorities within particular regimes. Symbolically, global governmental entities highlight a moral aspiration among globalists toward cosmopolitanism , the idea that one should define oneself primarily as a citizen of the world and not of any particular nation. One scholar, Université de Montréal professor Jean-Philippe Thérien , has identified an ideology centering on the United Nations itself. Jean-Philippe Thérien, “The United Nations Ideology: From Ideas to Global Policies,” Journal of Political Ideologies 20, no. 3 (2015): 221–243, https://doi.org/10.1080/13569317.2015.1075262. This ideology posits that because the United Nations represents the best in human endeavor, it should be the primary vehicle through which international problems are addressed. The United Nations ideology liberates its supporters from any narrow viewpoint tied to a particular country, region, or religious belief. Because neither the West nor any one group or section of the world determines truly global responses to global problems, the United Nations ideology eliminates the concern that foreign aid and development initiatives will surface old colonial tropes of the West such as the “White savior.” Like the United Nations ideology, Indigenism stresses the importance of seeing beyond the contributions or actions of White people, arguing that Indigenous tribal communities have special virtues and that these communities must be preserved. According to Indigenists, tribal membership permits higher levels of trust and reciprocity among group members than broader loyalties, such as loyalty to a nation, to a political movement like communism, or to a world religion like Islam, Buddhism, or Christianity. The tribe and its distinctive religious and cultural understandings encourage mutual caregiving and a stable and rooted sense of identity. Further, Indigenism contends that Indigenous communities have developed over the course of their long existence ways of living that respect the natural environment and are ecologically sustainable. Members of the Xolon Salinan tribe participate in a smudging purification ceremony before they visit the Stony Valley Arch in California in 2018. (credit: “Smudging Purification Ceremony” by Cynthia McIntyre/Fort Hunter Liggett Public Affairs Office/Department of Defense, Public Domain) Most advocates of Indigenism do not seek to leave Indigenous communities entirely isolated from the inexpensive and highly effective medicines, famine-reducing high-yield agriculture, and transportation systems of the modern world. Instead, Indigenists usually argue for a form of federalism . Federalism allocates some powers to local governments and some to a central or national state. The central administration, most Indigenists argue, should be connected to the modern global world and should be able to provide food surpluses, medical care, and other services, including protection from foreign invasion, while at the same time allowing Indigenous tribes to govern themselves in most other matters. The degree to which the central government should intervene in tribal areas to protect what it sees as basic rights remains an important question in Indigenous political thought. Since the 1960s, a range of movements on the left of the political spectrum have emerged, forming a loose association of ideas sometimes referred to as the New Left. The New Left includes environmentalism, second- and third-wave feminism, critical race and gender theory, contemporary democratic socialism, globalism, and Indigenist federalism. Repudiating communism and other nondemocratic approaches, these movements seek to make society more progressive. The line between the center left and the New Left is a blurry one, as some New Left movements have become so mainstream among center-left advocates that they now form core elements of center-left ideology. cosmopolitanism the idea that one should define oneself primarily as a citizen of the world and not of any particular nation critical race and gender theory a contemporary movement to expand rights and equity by compensating past victims of injustice through law and public policy in order to achieve a current condition that is judged to be fairer democratic socialism a New Left movement defined by a deep appreciation of socialist ideology and democracy environmentalism a movement that aims to preserve and protect the natural environment first-wave feminism a movement in the 19th and 20th centuries to advance women’s rights, such as the rights to vote, to enter into contracts, and to work in all professional fields globalism an ideology that calls for either enhancing the power of existing global institutions, such as the United Nations, or creating new international bodies with effective governing authority indigenism a movement asserting that Indigenous tribal communities have special virtues and deserve to be preserved by the state intersectionality the belief that individuals may have characteristics that make them members of more than one oppressed group and that these groups intersect, exacerbating the oppression that such individuals experience multiculturalism an ideology arguing that all or almost all of the cultures in the world are valid and should be respected, that many individuals derive a great sense of their identity and self-worth through their membership in a particular culture, and that the state should affirm this diversity of cultures neoliberalism a movement to encourage developing countries to adopt a free market, open their economies to international trade, avoid significant inflation, and enhance the rule of law and the rights of individuals second-wave feminism a form of feminism that emerged in the 1970s and focused primarily on bodily freedoms and safety surrounding sex and personal relationships, especially the right to abortion, the right to a divorce without having to show cause, prevention of domestic violence, and critiques of pornography socialism an ideology committed to remaking society to ensure more or less equal material wealth, and especially equal possession of the goods that individuals need to reach their full potential structural racism a form of racism thought to be manifest when actions are taken within a legal, political, and cultural context that has been shaped by the past racist decisions of others, regardless of the individual actors’ personal beliefs or intent third-wave feminism a form of feminism that argues that society is marked by embedded cultural patriarchy and works to upend these patriarchal norms

Social Sciences


Contemporary Ideologies Further to the Political Right Learning Outcomes By the end of this section, you will be able to: Discuss the ideology of the New Right and define a number of key movements within it. Assess the relationship among New Right movements. Assess the relationship between the New Right and the center right. Just as a New Left diverged from center-left democratic liberalism, a New Right is veering off from democratic liberalism’s center right. The New Right has enjoyed political success not only in the United States but also in Brazil and Hungary. The exact line between the center right and the New Right, like that between the center left and the New Left, is unclear and in a state of flux. This New Right is not a simple revival of the Old Right, which represents views not held by many in the West today. These views include support for monarchical authoritarianism; inherited aristocracy, in which, unlike in Aristotle’s sense of the word aristocracy, political power is conferred not because a group is virtuous but because they have inherited land and privilege; an extreme form of nationalism; a formal union of church and state; and an alliance with landowners and those with entrenched long-held wealth to the conscious detriment of the middle and lower classes. So what defines the New Right? One important element of the New Right is the way that it speaks to those who identify with traditional Judaism, evangelical Christianity , classical liberalism, and the center right who feel beleaguered and under siege. In response to these perceived threats, adherents of the New Right maintain that the center right is insufficiently protective, just as the New Left sees the center left as insufficiently progressive. See Michael Anton, “The Flight 93 Election,” Claremont Review of Books , September 5, 2016, https://claremontreviewofbooks.com/digital/the-flight-93-election/. Concerns about Culture The New Right sees what it calls cultural Marxism —that is, Gramsci ’s theory that culture must be weaponized against the upper classes—as one major danger. Many in the New Right feel that the culture has been weaponized against all they hold dear, just as many in the New Left feel that society has suppressed their values and principles. English author and social critic Os Guinness , for example, places special emphasis not only on Gramsci but also on German-American philsopher and political theorist Herbert Marcuse (1898–1979), who argues in his 1964 book, One-Dimensional Man , that the working classes have become immersed in consumerist culture and, needing jobs to fulfill their consumerist appetites, have lost their ability to think in a revolutionary way about their oppression. Marcuse argued that growing movements in the 1960s for sexual liberation and for more radical forms of social change represented the forces that could initiate a communist revolution, and he advocated for dramatic cultural change. As UCLA professor Douglas Kellner remarks, “Marcuse championed . . . minorities, outsiders, and radical intelligentsia [writers, professors, and artists] and attempted to nourish oppositional thought and behavior through promoting radical thinking.” Douglas Kellner, “Herbert Marcuse,” UCLA School of Education & Information Studies, https://pages.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/kellner/essays/herbertmarcuse.pdf. According to Marcuse, this radical thinking would galvanize calls for a revolutionary overthrow of capitalism—a feat that the working class was no longer able to effectuate. As a result, Marcuse became one of the most prominent champions of what in the 1960s was termed the counterculture . Thinkers such as Os Guinness argue that the counterculture has come to represent the dominant ethos of such prominent and now mainstream culture-influencing arenas as Hollywood and social media, which they see as routinely mocking and belittling traditional values. Guinness views the use of this increasingly mainstream counterculture as an attempt to effectuate Marxist objectives. Such a movement, Guinness argues, has created only rapid cultural and moral decline. Os Guinness, The Dust of Death: The Sixties Counterculture and How It Changed America Forever (1973; repr., Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2020). Other members of the New Right use the term cultural Marxism more metaphorically. For example, in a May 2021 speech, the former attorney general for the Trump administration, William Barr , argued that critical race and gender theory share with Marxism a divisive “us versus them” mentality and an attachment to social change similar to the communist call for a workers’ revolution. See Jeremy Beaman, “Barr Slams ‘Secular Progressive Orthodoxy’ in Public Schools,” Washington Examiner , May 21, 2021, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/william-barr-speech-slamming-progressive-orthodoxy. According to these social conservatives, these features make critical race and gender theory a socially destructive force, just like Marxism. Political Ideology and Critical Thinking The Political Spectrum Political beliefs fall across a broad spectrum, and even individuals with seemingly very different perspectives may, upon closer inspection, agree more than they disagree. At their core, political ideologies help people make sense of the world and can help people understand the various policy options available to governments. Different ideological perspectives advocate for different policy approaches, or even for different governmental systems. When a writer, thinker, or politician says that problem X can be solved with solution K, they are usually basing this statement on analysis that is the product of critical thinking. Critical thinking helps people use data, ideas, and different perspectives to look at the specific problem at hand, understand the arguments being presented, and come to a conclusion about what they think is the best solution. Not everyone will agree on a “best” solution to a problem, and when one looks at political ideology, one is offered multiple different answers informed by the different ideologies and their perspectives. By studying these ideologies, understanding their points of view, and seeing how they are translated into the political sphere, you are sharpening your critical-thinking skills. Critical-thinking skills are essential for helping you solve problems by looking at things in different ways—and this is one of the most valuable skills that you can have in any field. Concerns over Equity Increasingly, conservatives see calls for equity —a view that sees it as fair to extend more services or benefits to individuals who are members of marginalized groups—as an assault on the principle of equal treatment under the law. Many among the New Right see calls for equity, understood as calls to extend greater legal and political emphasis to historically marginalized groups, as an attack directed primarily against the social influence of Christianity, which, in demographic terms, has constituted the majority religion in the United States since the country’s founding and in many other parts of the world. Critics contend that this is problematic because they see Judeo-Christian values as providing important support for such things as individual rights, democracy, and the rule of law . That a number of large corporations have recently embraced the agendas of diversity , equity, and inclusion further contributes to the sense among a number of conservatives that they are under attack. Legend has it that the former CEO of General Motors and secretary of defense in the administration of Republican president Dwight D. Eisenhower , Charlie Wilson , said, “What is good for General Motors is good for the United States”—a quote that has been taken, along with tax cuts on large companies advanced by many Republican administrations, as a sign of the close connection between big business and conservative politics in the United States. However, many in the New Right maintain that numerous large companies are now “ woke capitalists ” who want free markets to maximize their own profits while they espouse and impose New Left social values to which the New Right is opposed. Those on the New Right see these “woke capitalists” as violating the close connection between economic freedom, free markets, social conservatism that defined the center-right coalition for decades. As part of this growing rift between the New Right and many major corporations, New Right thinkers such as conservative author and venture capitalist J. D. Vance see the massive investments that “woke capitalists” make in countries such as communist China, a country that they see as subtly but effectively undermining the foundation of Western, Judeo-Christian, and classically liberal values, See, for example, numerous pieces on the relatively new website American Greatness, such as Conrad Black, “China vs. America,” American Greatness, June 28, 2021, https://amgreatness.com/2021/06/28/china-vs-america/. as a betrayal of the long-standing social values of their countries of origin (such as the United States, Canada, and the countries of western Europe). For these thinkers, such investments mean these firms dare not offend the Chinese Communist Party, lest their manufacturing facilities and the profits they generate be shuttered or they lose access to hundreds of millions of Chinese consumers. See Vivek Ramaswamy, Woke, Inc.: Inside Corporate America’s Social Justice Scam (New York: Center Street, 2021). Conservatives Push Back on CEOs with “Woke Capitalism” Campaign Conservative nonprofit Consumer’s Research ran an ad campaign aiming to apply pressure on the CEOs of specific companies to force them to re-evaluate their company’s progressive political stances. Conservative Populism In response to these perceived threats, the New Right has adopted a variation of populism , a political view that emphasizes the need to win elections in order to install a government that will respond to the demands of “ordinary people,” who, according to populists, should be given a much greater role in how governmental policy is set to ensure that their interests are adequately served. This New Right ideology is known as conservative populism . In the United States, populism has a long history, primarily focused on reducing what is perceived as the excessive power of certain elites. In the past, populists rallied against the owners of nationwide railway networks and processing plants for what they believed to be their unfair treatment of farmers. They denounced the financial experts who set fiscal policy (the policies that determine the amount of money in circulation) for what the populists believed to be excessive efforts to avoid inflation. Until the middle of the 20th century, populist movements in the United States tended to be on the left of the political spectrum. In Europe, populist movements have tended to divide between left and right. Bolivarian socialism is widely seen as a variant of left-wing populism. Christian Parenti, “Hugo Chávez and Petro Populism,” The Nation , March 24, 2005, https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/hugo-chavez-and-petro-populism/. Conservative populism is a movement on the right that calls for winning elections so that the government can regulate media and corporate elites in order to protect traditional Western culture and the interests of what adherents see as “ordinary” citizens. Recently, conservative populists have called for the regulation of large social media companies, such as Twitter and Facebook , which they accuse of limiting conservative views on their platforms. In this sense, conservative populists and a number of center-left and New Left advocates share a common concern about social media companies, although the reasons for this concern often differ. Left-of-center advocates, for example, are increasingly concerned that social media allows for the spread of disinformation, while conservative populists seek government regulation of social media companies so as to mandate reduced restrictions on content. Chris Teale, “Lawmakers See 2022 as the Year to Rein In Social Media. Others Worry Politics Will Get in the Way,” Morning Consult, December 15, 2021, https://morningconsult.com/2021/12/15/social-media-regulation-poll-2022/. Nevertheless, while the center right has historically sought to minimize government regulations, the New Right sees an expansive role for government. Matthew Continetti, “Making Sense of the New American Right,” National Review , June 1, 2019, https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/06/new-american-right-schools-of-thought/. More broadly, conservative populism unites fusionism —moderate social conservatism combined with moderate economic libertarianism—with a call for a stronger government role in helping what it considers to be hardworking, economically struggling Americans. One way it seeks to do this is by promoting tighter immigration enforcement as a way to increase the wages of American workers by reducing the competition for jobs that they see as driving down wages. Scott Morefield, “In Defense of Trump,” The Hill , December 26, 2016, https://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign/311549-in-defense-of-trumpism. Conservative populism seeks to limit the role of government in overseas military engagements to only those engagements directly related to clear threats to national security, pointing out that the resources spent on wars such as those in Iraq and Afghanistan could be spent on programs that assist the American economy and help the American people. Although its appeal is not limited to members of the historically dominant race or culture in a country, some commentators worry that conservative populism may be giving voice to race-based fears about changing demographics in the countries where this form of populism is rising. Viktor Orbán, the conservative populist leader of Hungary, has been a staunch promoter of conservative political ideology on the international stage. (credit: “Viktor Orbán” by European People’s Party/Flickr, CC BY 2.0) Donald Trump ’s victory in the 2016 US presidential election in many ways showcased the rise of large elements of the New Right ideology, but the movement has grown in other areas of the world as well. Conservative populists Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil and Viktor Orbán in Hungary are two prominent examples. Orbán represents the Fidesz political party, which has embraced conservative populism and a greater identification of Hungary with its Christian heritage, including the incorporation of biblical values directly into public law. Despite these victories for its adherents, the future of conservative populism, as with so much in world politics, remains uncertain. To broaden your understanding of various political ideologies, you can attend webinars or Zoom meetings hosted by a range of ideologically grounded issue advocacy groups. Challenge yourself to watch conferences or speakers from a diverse set of organizations. Some suggestions are listed below. American Constitution Society Center for American Progress The Claremont Institute Democratic Socialists of America The Federalist Society Feminist Majority Foundation Greenpeace The Heritage Foundation Independent Women’s Forum Just as thinkers on the political left began to argue that the center left was insufficiently progressive, the past decade has seen the rise of a New Right that questions whether the center right is sufficiently protective of traditional cultural norms. This movement is associated with conservative populism and has seen electoral success not only in the United States but also in countries such as Hungary and Brazil. conservative populism an ideology on the right that calls for winning elections so that the government can regulate media and corporate elites in order to protect traditional Western culture and what adherents see as “ordinary” citizens political secularism the view that explicitly religious sets of principles should not administer government

Social Sciences


Political Ideologies That Reject Political Ideology: Scientific Socialism, Burkeanism, and Religious Extremism Learning Outcomes By the end of this section, you will be able to: Analyze the limitations of ideological thinking. Discuss alternative ways of examining political life. Assess the enduring power and influence of political ideologies. Among the diversity that defines the global ideological landscape are movements that repudiate the concept of political ideology itself. These movements see ideologies as deeply problematic even as they essentially express an ideology—that is, a cluster of ideas about how politics is and should be that informs their political action. Marxism and the Priority of Science In his 1845 work The German Ideology , Marx argues that the dominant economic forces in a society can shape human reason. Marx held that the ruling class would concoct views about the world to perpetuate their rule. In Marx’s thinking, careful empirical observation and rigorous study are needed to break the spell of these ideas. Marxists, including the members of the Chinese Communist Party, label as “ideology” any views that are not confirmed by hard-nosed social science. For this reason, Marxists and Maoists often call their vision scientific socialism and repudiate “ideological” thinking, which they view as the product of abstract thinking not grounded in scientific reality. Burkeanism and the Priority of Prudence Followers of the political thought of British writer Edmund Burke (1729–1797), such as English philosopher Michael Oakeshott (1901–1990), reject a wide swath of political visions, including Marxism. They use Burke’s writings to argue that political ideologies based on reason risk dismissing all that does not meet with the approval of their rational vision’s assessment of reality. Oakeshott contended that because ideologies overestimate the powers of human reason, they dangerously repudiate traditions and customs that have stood the test of time and disregard the complexity of political life. It is much safer, followers of Burke and Oakeshott argue, to test the consequences of innovations slowly and cautiously against the most fundamental insights that have developed among thinkers over the centuries. Religious Extremism and the Priority of Revelation Having questioned what reason and science can reveal about how politics should operate in the future, why should one rest content with reliance on the lessons of history? Are the lessons of history really unambiguous? If not, then they require interpretation. But if reason and science provide no guide, by what means can one interpret the historical record? Questions such as these have led to the emergence of the approach to politics often called religious extremism , or the reliance on the will of God as revealed to finite and fallible minds in a book of revelation. For religious extremists, everything outside of revelation is empty human “ideology.” For them, revelation is a clear, singular guide to the most important questions of political life. Religious extremists reject political secularism , or the view that explicitly religious sets of principles should not administer government. Buddhist extremists in Myanmar have expelled Rohingya Muslims because they do not recognize them as citizens. (credit: “Rohingya Displaced Muslims” by Seyyed Mahmoud Hosseini/Tasnim News Agency/Wikimedia Commons, CC BY 4.0) Religious extremism is not unique to any particular faith. Recently, for example, religious extremism has played a major role in political disputes in Myanmar, where Buddhist extremists believe that celestial beings gave the land of Myanmar to the followers of Buddha and that the Muslim Rohingya people are defiling foreigners. See Amnesty International USA, The Rohingya in Myanmar: A History of Persecution , testimony for Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission hearing, House Comm. on Foreign Affairs, 115th Cong. (March 17, 2017), https://humanrightscommission.house.gov/sites/humanrightscommission.house.gov/files/documents/Amnesty%20International%20USA%20Testimony%20for%20Rohingya%20Hearing%20%20March%202017%20.pdf. It has played a major role in the development of Orthodox Jewish settlements in the territories of Israel acquired during the Six-Day War of 1967. It has inspired some Christians to a vision of a godly kingdom in which false believers have no place and can be removed by force. And it inspires Muslim members of the Taliban who once again rule Afghanistan. Its potency must not be underestimated. Some major political thinkers see themselves as eschewing the very concept of political ideology. Many Marxists have defined their cause as based not on philosophies about government but on the findings of hard social science. Thinkers such as Edmund Burke and Michael Oakeshott repudiate the overly abstract nature of political ideologies. Religious extremists reject the idea that humans can reason to the best form of political regime, asserting that a blueprint for society is readily at hand in the form of literal and inflexible readings of divine revelation. Suggested Readings Baradat, Leon P., and John A. Phillips. Political Ideologies: Their Origins and Impact . 13th ed. New York: Routledge, 2020. Juergensmeyer, Mark. Terror in the Mind of God: The Global Rise of Religious Violence . Rev. and updated 4th ed. Oakland: University of California Press, 2017. Lam, Willy Wo-Lap, ed. Routledge Handbook of the Chinese Communist Party . New York: Routledge, 2018. Niezen, Ronald. The Origins of Indigenism: Human Rights and the Politics of Identity . Berkeley: University of California Press, 2003. Ryan, Alan. On Politics: A History of Political Thought from Herodotus to the Present . 2 vols. New York: Liveright, 2012. Smith, George H. The System of Liberty: Themes in the History of Classical Liberalism . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013. Toft, Monica Duffy, Daniel Philpott, and Timothy Samuel Shah. God’s Century: Resurgent Religion and Global Politics . New York: W. W. Norton, 2011.

Social Sciences


Introduction The Statue of Liberty in New York is a symbol of freedom around the world. (credit: “Statue of Liberty” by William Warby/Flickr, CC BY 2.0) During the COVID-19 pandemic, governments around the world asked and sometimes required people to wear masks to prevent the spread of the virus. Claire Felter and Nathalie Bussemaker, “Which Countries Are Requiring Face Masks?,” Council on Foreign Affairs, August 4, 2020, https://www.cfr.org/in-brief/which-countries-are-requiring-face-masks. Some people agreed to comply as a part of their responsibilities to the community, while others protested, arguing that any restrictions wrongfully impinged on their individual freedoms. Patrick Reilly, “Three Washington State Schools Put on Lockdown amid Anti-mask Protests,” New York Post , September 4, 2021, https://nypost.com/2021/09/04/anti-mask-protesters-force-lockdown-of-three-washington-state-schools/; Soo Kim, “Anti-mask Protests across Europe as Coronavirus Cases Rise 4 Days in a Row,” Newsweek , August 17, 2020, https://www.newsweek.com/coronavirus-europe-anti-mask-protests-spain-belgium-germany-uk-france-1525485. In the United States, individuals actively protest instances of social injustice and feel it is their individual right to express support for or criticize government officials. In Myanmar, a military dictatorship , the government violently shuts down anti-government protests. “Global Protest Tracker,” Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, last updated January 7, 2022, https://carnegieendowment.org/publications/interactive/protest-tracker. Freedom House , a nonprofit organization that monitors individual freedom and democracy worldwide, found that in 2021, for the 15th straight year, individual liberty and democracy declined worldwide. “Global Freedom Status,” Freedom House, accessed January 27, 2022, https://freedomhouse.org/explore-the-map?type=fiw&year=2021. Anti–face Mask Protests Take Place in Several Cities across Europe During the COVID-19 pandemic, demonstrators around the world protested government mask mandates in places like Berlin, Paris, and London. In each of these instances, individuals and the government assert that they are protecting freedom and acting for the common good. This chapter will examine when the individual is free to act without government interference, when the government can restrain individual expression, and how different political systems react to the exercise of individual freedoms.

Social Sciences


The Freedom of the Individual Learning Outcomes By the end of this section, you will be able to: Define community. Identify the responsibilities of the individual as a member of a group. Discuss the need for individual freedom in a group. Analyze how different systems treat the individual. Define civil liberties, civil rights, and human rights. If all people lived separately, each person would be free to act in any way they want. However, each person lives in many different communities based on their family, ethnicity, religion, and place of residence, and their actions affect other people. A community is a group of people with shared interests and values. National communities today may include people of different ages, races, educational backgrounds, and incomes. In some of these communities, individuals or groups with weapons and economic power force people into a community. In other national communities, people enter into agreements regarding what they can do as individuals and what restrictions the government can set for the common good. How do community members voluntarily decide when the government can restrict individual action for the good of that community? An individual has community responsibilities , or duties or obligations to the community, including all things that are expected of individuals if they wish to remain members of that community. These responsibilities include cooperation, respect, and participation (or, as Chapter 1: What Is Politics and What Is Political Science? put it, civic engagement ). Community responsibilities go beyond thinking and acting as individuals to sharing common beliefs about society’s order and the treatment of others. Each country guarantees certain civil liberties to its people, but how governments interpret these liberties varies widely. Civil rights and civil liberties are often used interchangeably, but the terms are distinct. Civil liberties are guarantees of freedom from government interference. To determine whether a civil liberty is at stake when a limit is placed on an action, one must ask if the action being considered is a fundamental liberty , who is restricting the action, and whether the restriction is justified based on greater community needs. For example, the right to vote is not explicitly stated in the US Constitution, but US citizens now view it as fundamental to the US style of democracy. The Constitution does prohibit denial of the right to vote on the basis of race or sex, and it states that certain people are elected to office, but nowhere does it guarantee a right to vote or say who gets to do the voting. However, the right to vote is now seen as so fundamental to the United States’ democratic identity that limits placed on that right are usually considered to be an infringement of the fundamental implied agreement between the people and the government. Indeed, this general point about constitution's including implied rights played a significant role in the thinking of many of the authors and ratifiers of the US Constitution when formulated during the Constitutional Convention of 1787. Although the founders tended not to see voting as a civil liberty each adult was entitled to, they did believe that other civil liberties exist that are taken for granted by the Constitution without being explicitly stated within it. Indeed, according to many of the Constitution's founders, it was important for the US Constitution not to be construed as an exhaustive list of civil liberties. This is so because they feared that attempting to list the full range of our rights might give rise to the view that civil liberties come only as grants or gifts from the government. Most of the founders, on the contrary, held that individuals have natural rights that entail civil liberties, which the government must not imperil. These natural rights can be understood by reason and so do not need an elaborate listing in a constitutional document, especially when doing so might cause confusion about the origin of these rights, causing some to see them as government-granted and not inalienable endowments conferred by what the Declaration of Independence calls "nature and nature's God." This example from the thought of the founders of the Constitution illustrates the general point that many constitutions can be seen as containing implied civil liberties not formulated explicitly within their text. This flowchart illustrates the criteria for determining whether a limit on action represents an inappropriate infringement of a civil liberty. (attribution: Copyright Rice University, OpenStax, under CC BY NC-SA 4.0 license) On the other hand, civil rights are government guarantees of equal treatment without discrimination based on characteristics an individual shares with a particular population. Civil rights often refers to the right to freedom from discrimination based, for example, on race, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, ability, age, or national origin. To determine whether civil rights abuses are occurring, one must ask whether similarly situated persons are being treated differently. Chapter 7 focuses specifically on civil rights. Civil Liberties, Civil Rights, and Human Rights: A Comparison Civil Liberties Civil Rights Human Rights The rights of people to do or say things without government interference. Civil liberties depend on the structure and action of the government for enforcement. The government declares restrictions on individuals’ liberties for the good of the community. Rights that the government must safeguard to prevent discrimination against individuals based on arbitrary characteristics such as sex, race, religion, or disability. The government must ensure that each person is treated equally. Civil rights depend on the structure and action of the government for enforcement. Human rights are often called inalienable rights , which can be neither given nor taken away. These rights are the basis for freedom, justice, and peace in the world. Human rights include both civil liberties and civil rights. They do not emanate from a governmental structure; however, it takes government action to recognize how they apply to people. Both civil liberties and civil rights fall under the umbrella of human rights . Human rights activists assert that human rights are inalienable —that is, they can be neither given nor taken away, and they are due to all persons. Chapter 3: Political Ideology considered this idea in the context of the philosophies of John Locke and Thomas Hobbes . Locke viewed inalienable rights as emanating from human nature before government existed and as objective moral truths to establish common behavior equally applicable to all persons; thus, in his view, only minimal government was necessary. Hobbes also saw them as emanating from human nature, but he viewed that nature as a selfish one that community and government rules must restrain. Today, intergovernmental or nongovernmental organizations may formally recognize and enshrine statements of human or inalienable rights. However, the protection of human rights around the world is fraught with difficulties. Not all areas of the world share the same political and legal philosophy regarding human rights, and individual governments implement these philosophies within specific nations. Consider the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), which was adopted in 1948. UN General Assembly, Resolution 217 A, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, A/RES/217(III) (Dec. 10, 1948), https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights. A number of Islamic countries have issues with the UDHR, arguing that it attempts to impose Western philosophies on other cultures. The members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (now the Organization of Islamic Cooperation) adopted the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam in 1990. Organization of the Islamic Conference, “Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam,” University of Minnesota Human Rights Library, accessed June 28, 2021, http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/instree/cairodeclaration.html. The Cairo Declaration rejects the UDHR’s right to change religions, broad freedom of expression, and broad freedoms of women and marriage. “Arab Charter on Human Rights Tunis May 2004 (Excerpts),” Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, United Nations, accessed June 28, 2021, https://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/RuleOfLaw/CompilationDemocracy/Pages/ArabCharter.aspx. These differences are symbolic of the second issue with human rights: statements of human rights are nonbinding. As part of their sovereignty , governments are free to ignore or follow human rights declarations at will. For example, in 1948, South Africa practiced apartheid , racial segregation, and discrimination and objected to statements in the UDHR supporting equality and denouncing racial segregation and discrimination. Franck Kuwonu, “Africa’s Freedom Struggles and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,” Africa Renewal , December 2018–March 2019, https://www.un.org/africarenewal/magazine/december-2018-march-2019/africa’s-freedom-struggles-and-universal-declaration-human-rights; “Human Rights Day,” Parliament of the Republic of South Africa, accessed January 27, 2022, https://www.parliament.gov.za/project-event-details/2; Penelope Andrews, “South Africa,” in Encyclopedia of Human Rights , ed. David P. Forsythe (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 4:481–491, https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2316&context=fac_articles_chapters. Apartheid raised issues of human rights, civil liberties, and civil rights; discriminating against individuals because of their race is a violation of a civil right, and restrictions on freedom of movement and the freedom to choose whom to marry are violations of civil liberties. After a long struggle led by Nelson Mandela , apartheid ended in South Africa in the early 1990s, and South Africa has since come to support the UDHR. “Unit 6: The End of Apartheid and the Birth of Democracy,” South Africa: Overcoming Apartheid, accessed January 27, 2022, https://overcomingapartheid.msu.edu/unit.php?id=65-24E-6; “South African Constitution: The Bill of Rights,” South African History Online, last updated August 27, 2019, https://www.sahistory.org.za/article/south-african-constitution-bill-rights. However, that change came from within South Africa. While some international pressure may have contributed to the shift, it was only when South Africa’s government changed its national civil liberties and its stance on human rights that it agreed to the human rights declarations. Today, the South African Bill of Rights includes portions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. “Document 37: The Bill of Rights,” South African History Online, last updated September 1, 2019, https://www.sahistory.org.za/archive/document-37-bill-rights. The only power in the nonbinding nongovernmental UDHR is the weight of social and economic pressure that those who adhere to the declaration bring to bear. No government can be forced to accept the rights enumerated in the UDHR or to protect them within their territory. The world imposed economic and social sanctions on South Africa to pressure it to change its policy of apartheid, but it was not until the South African government changed its position that it abolished apartheid and accepted the UDHR. Becky Little, “Key Steps That Led to End of Apartheid,” History, last updated November 23, 2020, https://www.history.com/news/end-apartheid-steps. As this example illustrates, human rights declarations are primarily idealistic, but they can be used to put economic or social pressure on governments to urge them to change policies. People can also use them to guide the creation of civil liberties within a particular country and to instruct governments on how to respect them. Examining the definitions of civil liberties, civil rights, and human rights reveals how each relates to the relationship between the individual and the community and how governments regulate that relationship. The United States Constitution is one example of a country’s guarantees of civil liberties. The first 10 amendments to the Constitution, known collectively as the Bill of Rights , establish these guarantees. “Fact Sheet No. 2 (Rev. 1), The International Bill of Human Rights,” Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, United Nations, accessed January 27, 2022, https://www.ohchr.org/documents/publications/factsheet2rev.1en.pdf; Beverly McLachlin, “Bills of Rights in Common Law Countries,” The International and Comparative Law Quarterly 51, no. 2 (April 2002): 197–203, https://www.jstor.org/stable/3663226. The United States grants each of these rights to all persons , not just to citizens. Over time, the US Constitution has been interpreted to protect more people and activities from potential government interference. Still, for the good of the community, there are limits on individual actions. It is the job of the government to enforce these limits. This human rights mural in Durban, South Africa, illustrates numerous rights commonly recognized by governments around the world. Notice how it includes civil rights (equality) and civil liberties (speech, conscience). The mural illustrates how the two go hand in hand throughout society. (credit: “South-Africa-Bill-of-Rights-Durban-mural-06Dec2014-LBB-4697” by Lee Bob Black/Flickr, Public Domain) At the Constitution Center , you can compare the rights protected in the US Constitution with rights protected in other constitutions around the world. Which rights guaranteed by the US Constitution are most commonly recognized around the world? Which are exclusive to the United States and just a couple of other countries? At the World Policy Center , you can review the rights that other countries often guarantee that the US Constitution does not. Rights and Liberties Guaranteed in the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution “The Bill of Rights: What Does It Say?,” America’s Founding Documents, National Archives, last updated July 24, 2020, https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/bill-of-rights/what-does-it-say; U.S. Const., Bill of Rights, https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/billofrights. First Amendment Prohibits restrictions on the free exercise of religion; prohibits the government from taking any action “respecting an establishment” of religion or infringing on free speech; guarantees the right to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances Second Amendment Guarantees the right to keep and bear arms in order to maintain a well-regulated militia Third Amendment Guarantees that no person shall be forced to house soldiers Fourth Amendment Guarantees security from unreasonable search and seizure Fifth Amendment Guarantees due process before deprivation of “life, liberty, or property,” the right to indictment by a grand jury for capital crimes, and the right to avoid self-incrimination Sixth Amendment Guarantees the rights of the accused to counsel and a speedy trial by an impartial jury, to be informed of the charges against them, and to confront witnesses Seventh Amendment Guarantees the right to a jury trial in civil cases Eighth Amendment Guarantees freedom from excessive bail, excessive fines, and cruel and unusual punishment Ninth Amendment Declares that people retain rights not enumerated in the Constitution Tenth Amendment Declares that states retain all rights that have not been delegated to the federal government or the people and have not been prohibited to the states by the Constitution Civil liberties are guarantees of freedom from government interference that prevent the government from placing restrictions on many individual actions and choices. However, individuals live in communities, or groups of people with shared interests and values, and their actions within their communities affect other people. Community responsibilities are an individual’s duties or obligations to the community—those things that are expected of individuals if they wish to remain members of that community. bill of rights a list or summary of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the individual by the state; in the United States, the first 10 amendments to the US Constitution civil liberties guarantees of freedom from government interference civil rights guarantees of equal treatment by government without discrimination based on characteristics an individual shares with a particular subset of the population community a group of people with shared interests and values, e.g., a family, a religion, or a political group community responsibilities an individual’s duties or obligations as a part of a community, including cooperation, respect, and participation; goes beyond thinking and acting as individuals to common beliefs about society’s order and the treatment of others human rights inherent rights that, philosophically, can be neither given nor taken away by any government; the basis for freedom, justice, and peace in the world inalienable describes rights that are due to all persons and, philosophically, can be neither given nor taken away by any government

Social Sciences


Constitutions and Individual Liberties Learning Outcomes Differentiate between negative rights and positive rights constitutions. Define constitutionalism. Analyze how different constitutional systems treat the individual. Define due process. Explain how the rule of law and its principles are important to individual freedom. As discussed in Chapter 2: Political Behavior Is Human Behavior most countries have a formal constitution —a framework, blueprint, or foundation for the operation of a government. The constitution need not be in writing, in one document, or even labeled a constitution. Britain, New Zealand, and Israel do not have codified constitutions but instead use uncollected writings that establish the form of government and set out the principles of liberty. Lauren Wade, “The Pros and Cons of an ‘Unwritten’ Constitution,” The Lawyer Portal, October 1, 2019, https://www.thelawyerportal.com/blog/the-pros-and-cons-of-having-an-unwritten-constitution/. In many countries, a series of documents, usually called the basic laws , codifies the government structure and individual rights. International IDEA, What Is a Constitution? Principles and Concepts , August 2014, https://www.constitutionnet.org/sites/default/files/what_is_a_constitution_0.pdf. If a country lacks a single document labeled a constitution, how does one know that certain writings serve as the country’s constitution? A constitution describes the underlying principles of the people and government, the structure of the branches of government, and their duties. It limits government, listing freedoms or rights reserved for the people, and it must be more difficult to amend or change than ordinary laws. Ibid. A constitution may be expressed in a way that emphasizes civil liberties as negative or positive rights. When political scientists say a constitution specifies negative rights , this means that it is written to emphasize limitations on government. Consider the wording of the First Amendment : “ Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” U.S. Const. amend. I–X, https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/bill-of-rights-transcript. (emphasis added) The amendment is phrased to focus not on what the government owes the people but on the limitations on the government’s ability to infringe upon the rights of individuals. The US Constitution leans toward being a negative rights constitution because most of the Bill of Rights is written in terms of restrictions on the government. In a positive rights constitution, rights are written in terms of a government obligation to guarantee the people’s rights. For example, article 5 of the German constitution, the German Basic Law , states: “Every person shall have the right freely to express and disseminate his opinions in speech, writing and pictures. . . . Freedom of the press . . . shall be guaranteed .” Germany Const. art. V, ¶ 1, https://www.btg-bestellservice.de/pdf/80201000.pdf. (emphasis added) This positive rights constitution emphasizes the government’s guarantee of freedom to the individual. Though the US Constitution is primarily seen as a negative rights constitution, like most constitutions it also describes positive rights, as in those clauses that guarantee the right to something. For example, the right to writ of habeas corpus, the right to assistance of counsel, and the right to a jury trial. U.S. Const., https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/. Most democratic constitutions written after World War II are positive rights constitutions. After the Nazis used the existing German constitution to restrict people’s freedoms in Germany and in the countries they conquered, people in the affected countries wanted assurances that the government recognized its obligation to the people and not just the people’s obligation to the government. Similar fears caused many countries not occupied by the Nazis to create positive rights constitutions. Commission on Unalienable Rights, Report of the Commission on Unalienable Rights , August 26, 2020, https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Draft-Report-of-the-Commission-on-Unalienable-Rights.pdf; Vicki C. Jackson, “Positive Obligations, Positive Rights, and Constitutional Amendment,” in Boundaries of State, Boundaries of Rights: Human Rights, Private Actors, and Positive Obligations , ed. Tsvi Kahana and Anat Scolnicov (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016), 109–128, https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107588943.006. These constitutions make the government the protector of freedom against all infringements. They do not just limit government action restricting the individual. Positive vs. Negative Rights In this short clip, the Center for Civic Education distinguishes between positive and negative rights. A country’s constitution delineates the degree of freedom of action that the government allows the individual, and that degree varies by political system. An individualist system emphasizes individuals over the community, including the government, while a communitarian system emphasizes community cohesiveness while recognizing the importance of individual freedoms. Countries vary in terms of the nature of their systems and the degree to which they stress individualism or communitarianism. What Are the Characteristics of Individualist Systems? In an individualist system, individuals take precedence over the government. Society rests on the principle that individuals inherently possess rights that the government should preserve and promote. Two major styles of individualism are common today: libertarianism (also called classical liberalism) and modern liberalism . Libertarianism emphasizes restraints on government. Liberalism emphasizes the government’s obligation to enforce laws that protect personal autonomy and rights. Let’s review some of the different philosophies discussed in Chapter 3 in terms of how they impact civil liberties. In libertarianism, individualists believe that governments exist to assist individuals in achieving their private interests. Therefore, libertarians place many restrictions (negative rights) on the government. As John Stuart Mill observed in his essay On Liberty (1859), in a strict individualist society: “The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil in case he do otherwise.” John Stuart Mill, On Liberty (London, 1859; Project Gutenberg, 2011), 18, https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/34901. The focus is on the individual, and the benefits to society that might flow from any restriction on the individual must be clear and convincing. This does not mean that the government can never restrict individual action, nor that the good of society need be wholly ignored. Still, it does mean there must be proof of sufficient harmful effects to justify any restraint. This is where the conflict between the individual and society occurs. It is here that the US style of “no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech” comes into play. For example, a person in the United States can say anything against any political candidate; they can even lie about the candidate. “We do not want the Government (i.e., the Ohio Elections Commission) deciding what is political truth—for fear that the Government might persecute those who criticize it. Instead, in a democracy, the voters should decide.” Susan B. Anthony List et al. v. Ohio Elections Commission, 45 F. Supp. 3d 765 (S.D. Ohio 2014), https://casetext.com/case/list-v-ohio-elections-commn-1; affirmed, 814 F.3d 466 (6th Cir. 2016). With the restriction on government action abridging free speech, no laws restrict that person’s conduct. However, they cannot say they will kill a candidate at three o’clock on Tuesday afternoon. This is a threat to an individual’s safety and to society’s law and order, so the government has laws to punish the person for making the threat. Further, some US statutes make a person liable for damages if they engage in defamation—that is, if they lie about and cause harm to a private person—although these statutes do not apply to lies about political candidates. Thus, even with the United States’ negative rights libertarian-style constitution, the government is not prohibited from imposing restrictions “abridging the freedom of speech” in every situation at all times. In an individualist society formed in a liberal style, the government actively protects individual rights. For example, under the German Basic Law and its guarantees of free speech, the government can prosecute a person for making false statements or heckling a candidate while they are making a speech. This is a violation of the Basic Law because the rights of free speech “shall find their limits in the provisions of general laws, in provisions for the protection of young persons and in the right to personal honour.” Germany Const., art. V, ¶ 2. Liberal governments are more proactive than libertarian ones in protecting the individual’s rights. Because they do so to protect the rights of all individuals for the good of society, they place more restrictions on the individual. Still, governments in liberal societies cannot wholly deny a person’s individual liberties. What Are the Characteristics of Communitarian Systems? A communitarian system emphasizes the role the government plays in the lives of citizens. Communitarian systems are grounded in the belief that people need the community and its values to create a cohesive society. Government exists not only to protect rights but also to form a political community to solve public problems. There is a public good, and it is the government’s job to protect it, even if that means restricting individual behaviors. Communitarians oppose excessive individualism, arguing that it leads people to be selfish or egocentric, which is harmful to a community. Individuals do not stand apart from society in discrete autonomy; they are part of society and have a role to play in protecting society. How countries put communitarianism into practice varies widely. Some countries, such as China, Singapore, and Malaysia, have authoritarian governments. This style of government enforces obedience to government authority by strongly limiting personal freedoms. These governments emphasize and enshrine in their constitutions social obligations and the common good. The Chinese constitution states, “Disruption of the socialist system by any organization or individual is prohibited.” China Const. ch. 1, art. I, http://www.npc.gov.cn/zgrdw/englishnpc/Constitution/2007-11/15/content_1372963.htm. In article 35, the Chinese constitution provides that “citizens of the People’s Republic of China enjoy the freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, the procession and demonstration.” Ibid. ch. 2, art. XXXV, http://www.npc.gov.cn/zgrdw/englishnpc/Constitution/2007-11/15/content_1372964.htm. However, comparing these two clauses with actual practices in the People's Republic of China shows that the government’s emphasis is not on protecting individual freedom and autonomy but on protecting the government’s view of a cohesive society. Amnesty International, “China,” in Amnesty International Report 2020/21: The State of the World’s Human Rights (London: Amnesty International, 2021), 119–124, https://www.amnesty.org/en/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/English.pdf. A display of Russian military might serves as a reminder of the nation’s authoritarian past. (credit: “Guarding” by Tinou Bao/Flickr, CC BY 2.0) Responsive communitarianism contrasts with the authoritarian style of communitarianism and the perceived selfishness of libertarianism. It seeks to blend the common good and individual autonomy while not allowing either to take precedence over the other. The individual is within society, the community, so the community constructs part of the individual identity. In responsive communitarianism , individual rights are balanced with societal norms of the good, and society or the government restrains the individual when individual action challenges an accepted norm. For example, the majority of people living in the United States today oppose slavery and racial injustice. However, had those people been born in the 18th century, many would have supported such concepts. Every community has standards that it declares essential to the common good—the common ground on which the community is formed. In circumstances where the common good takes precedence over the individual, conflict can ensue, and the society, including the government, must decide how to resolve the dispute. The COVID-19 pandemic mentioned at the beginning of this chapter resulted in severe illness and mass deaths around the world. Many viewed government actions restricting individuals during the pandemic as justified because the challenge the disease posed to society was severe enough to warrant temporarily suspending certain freedoms. People accepted or rejected these government restrictions depending on the degree to which they accepted scientific explanations and on their views of individualism and communitarianism. Scientists explained how the disease spread, and government leaders urged compliance. In many areas of the world, the government instituted restrictions on movement, required that people wear face masks, and punished persons who violated these edicts. Some individuals claimed that their rights were being violated. Some argued that masks do not make a significant difference in transmission of the virus and are unnecessary in most situations. Significant scientific evidence refutes this claim, but such individuals refused to accept it. They also argued that it is their inalienable right to decide whether or not to risk becoming sick or dying, prioritizing that right over the risk they might pose to others. Darren Cartwright, “Masks Should Not Be Mandatory When Community Transmission Not Prevalent: Experts,” news.com.au, January 20, 2021, https://www.news.com.au/national/breaking-news/masks-should-not-be-mandatory-when-community-transmission-not-prevalent-experts/news-story/d6e7e901285f86cebd5fee333777747a. When initial illness rates started to decline and vaccinations became available, the argument shifted to when and how to open up the social sphere and whether to require that people be vaccinated to enter certain places or to participate in certain activities. Alex Berezow, “Should COVID Vaccines Be Mandatory?,” American Council on Science and Health, February 5, 2021, https://www.acsh.org/news/2021/02/05/should-covid-vaccines-be-mandatory-15324. These responses to the pandemic are a perfect example of the conflicts inherent in everyday situations that require a balance between individuals’ civil liberties and the government’s obligation to act for the common good. Whether and to what degree a system is individualistic or communitarian does not determine if the system is a constitutional government. Simply having a document labeled a constitution does not give a country a constitutional government; to be considered a constitutional government, a country must practice constitutionalism. What Is Constitutionalism? The three main elements of constitutionalism are adherence to the rule of law, limited government, and guarantees of individual rights. The rule of law has four principles: Accountability : Government and private actors are accountable under the law, and no one is above the law. Just laws : The laws are clear, publicized, stable, and applied evenly. They protect fundamental rights, including protecting persons and property and certain core human rights. Open government : The processes by which the laws are enacted, administered, and enforced are accessible, fair, and efficient. Accessible and impartial dispute resolution : Justice is delivered in a timely manner by competent, ethical, and independent representatives, and neutral decision makers are accessible, have adequate resources, and reflect the communities they serve. Constitutionalism balances limited government with the fundamental worth of each individual. The government is limited because people have some right to make their own life decisions. The fundamental worth of each individual means that people have some right to self-determination, as shown in a bill of rights in a constitution. Maintaining a balance between government authority and individual freedom is a challenge. In constitutional governments, the rule of law limits government and protects individual rights. (attribution: Copyright Rice University, OpenStax, under CC BY NC-SA 4.0 license) Utilizing due process is part of the rule of law and constitutionalism, so it is more robustly defended in countries that practice constitutionalism than it is in those with constitutions that do not adhere to all the elements of constitutionalism. Due process is a legal requirement that the government respect the rights of the people, and it is a demonstration of the rule of law and the balancing of government power with individual rights. In the US Constitution, the due process clause provides that no one shall “be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” U.S. Const. amend. V. This clause applies to all persons, not just citizens of the United States. There are two aspects of due process: procedural due process and substantive due process. Procedural due process concerns the written guidelines for how the government interacts with individuals, while substantive due process concerns the individual’s right to be treated fairly when interacting with the government. A violation of due process offends the rule of law because it puts individuals or groups above the law or treats individuals or groups without equality. Due Process of Law In this video clip, Randy E. Barnett, professor of constitutional law at the Georgetown University Law Center, looks at the overarching concept of due process through the lens of US government and its British origins. When one thinks of the due process of law as government fairness to all persons, civil rights and civil liberties become intertwined. In the landmark same-sex marriage case Obergefell v. Hodges , the United States Supreme Court held that the due process clause of the 14th Amendment guarantees that the government will defend as a fundamental liberty the right to choose whom one will marry. The court also held that to deny that liberty would violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment because doing so would amount to unequal treatment of same-sex and opposite-sex couples, thus denying a same-sex couple equal protection of the law and amounting to a violation of the couple’s civil rights. Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015), https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf. Thus, same-sex marriage is both a civil liberty and a civil rights issue. The right to marry is a civil liberty because it is a freedom from government interference in one’s choice of a life partner. Same-sex marriage is a civil rights issue because to deny same-sex couples the right to marry is to subject them to unequal treatment. The case of same-sex marriage shows how both civil rights (equality) and civil liberties (freedom from government interference) are a part of the fair government treatment of individuals. Most countries have a formal constitution—a framework, blueprint, or foundation for the operation of a government. A constitution may be expressed in terms of negative rights, when it is written in a way that emphasizes limitations on the government, or positive rights, when it is written to emphasize the government’s obligation to guarantee the people’s rights. The amount of freedom of action that a constitution guarantees the individual varies by political system. Individualist systems emphasize the importance of individuals over the importance of the community, while communitarian systems emphasize community cohesiveness while also recognizing the importance of individual freedoms. Countries vary in terms of the nature and degree to which they stress individualism or communitarianism. Constitutionalism has three main elements: adherence to the rule of law, limited government, and guarantees of individual rights. The rule of law requires that government and private actors be held accountable under the law; that laws be clear, publicized, stable, and applied evenly; that the processes by which laws are enacted, administered, and enforced be accessible, fair, and efficient; and that justice be delivered in a timely manner by competent, ethical, and independent representatives who are accessible, have adequate resources, and reflect the communities they serve. Due process is a legal requirement that the government respect the rights of the people. Procedural due process concerns the written guidelines for how the government interacts with a person, while substantive due process concerns the individual’s right to be treated fairly when interacting with the government. authoritarian a style of government that enforces obedience to government authority by strongly limiting personal freedom communitarian describes a worldview that emphasizes the need for community and its values and the positive role that government plays in the lives of citizens; the idea that government exists to protect rights but also to form a political community to solve public problems constitution a framework, blueprint, or foundation for the operation of a government constitutionalism a system of government with three elements: the rule of law, limited government, and an element of individualism due process a legal requirement that the government respect the rights of the people; a demonstration of the rule of law and the balancing of government power with individual rights individualist describes a minimalist government system wherein individuals take precedence liberalism a system in which government actively protects individual rights libertarianism a system in which government exists to provide a means to assist individuals in achieving their private interests negative rights statements of individual rights that emphasize limitations on the government’s ability to infringe on those rights positive rights statements of individual rights that emphasize the government’s obligation to guarantee those rights responsive communitarianism a system that seeks to blend the common good with individual autonomy while not allowing either to take precedence over the other rule of law a philosophy of how society should be ordered in which all leaders are held accountable to the law; a higher law than majority rule

Social Sciences