Liberalism vs conservatism essay

In his Buck v. Bell decision — confirming that involuntary-sterilization programs pass constitutional muster “for the protection and health of the state” — the great humanist Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. declared: “Three generations of imbeciles are enough.” Never having been overturned, Buck remains, in theory, the law of the land. But that was long ago. And yet: Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a reliable supporter of abortion rights, has described Roe v. Wade as being a decision about population control , “particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.” Like Ellis and Sanger, Ginsburg worries that, without government intervention, birth control will be disproportionately practiced by the well-off and not by the members of those “populations that we don’t want to have too many of.” In an interview with Elle , Ginsburg said, “It makes no sense as a national policy to promote birth only among poor people.” That wasn’t 1927 — it was 2014. A co-counsel for the winning side of Roe v. Wade , Ron Weddington, advised President Bill Clinton that an expanded national birth-control policy incorporating ready access to pharmaceutical abortifacients promised immediate benefits: “You can start immediately to eliminate the barely educated, unhealthy, and poor segment of our country. It’s what we all know is true, but we only whisper it.”

The idea that liberalism comes in two forms assumes that the most fundamental question facing mankind is how much government intervenes into the economy.... When instead we discuss human purpose and the meaning of life, Adam Smith and John Maynard Keynes are on the same side. Both of them possessed an expansive sense of what we are put on this earth to accomplish... For Smith, mercantilism was the enemy of human liberty. For Keynes, monopolies were. It makes perfect sense for an eighteenth-century thinker to conclude that humanity would flourish under the market. For a twentieth century thinker committed to the same ideal, government was an essential tool to the same end.

Feminism as an approach or theory of international relations comes in many forms, all of which share a concentration on women’s lives and the sources of gender roles -– or “gender politics.”  Feminist theorizing emphasizes that female approaches to human interactions and other pursuits are not given equitable standing in social analysis and practice.  Feminism seeks not only to explain historical and present-day phenomena, but to foster changes in politics, economics and social interactions.  Areas of investigation have included a focus on understanding the reasons for the devaluing of women’s contributions to the world and new ways to use feminist thinking to improve the lives of women.  While all Feminists agree that women should be brought into positions of power -– in all civilian and military institutions –- they differ in assessing the consequences of such a major change, should it occur.  While some Feminist theorists (usually called “Liberal Feminists”) hold that women in powerful positions make decisions and exercise power in ways that are essentially the same as men, others (“Difference Feminists”) contend that traditional Realist and Liberal IR theories reflect male-centered descriptions of aggressive states controlled by men, and that that the world might well become a less violent place if women had greater power in international affairs.

Because World War II left the empires weak, the colonized countries started to break free. In some places, where countries had the potential to bring more democratic processes into place and maybe even provide an example for their neighbors to follow it threatened multinational corporations and their imperial (or former imperial) states (for example, by reducing access to cheap resources). As a result, their influence, power and control was also threatened. Often then, military actions were sanctioned. To the home populations, the fear of communism was touted, even if it was not the case, in order to gain support.

Liberalism vs conservatism essay

liberalism vs conservatism essay

Because World War II left the empires weak, the colonized countries started to break free. In some places, where countries had the potential to bring more democratic processes into place and maybe even provide an example for their neighbors to follow it threatened multinational corporations and their imperial (or former imperial) states (for example, by reducing access to cheap resources). As a result, their influence, power and control was also threatened. Often then, military actions were sanctioned. To the home populations, the fear of communism was touted, even if it was not the case, in order to gain support.

Media:

liberalism vs conservatism essayliberalism vs conservatism essayliberalism vs conservatism essayliberalism vs conservatism essay