I desire to define several popular political philosophies and analyze how well they deal with modern problems. Instead of dealing with all of them here, I will only treat three of them: Liberalism, Communitarianism and Conservatism. I may deal with others in the future. Liberalism and Conservatism are not easy to define in today's political culture but it is necessary to understand their historical background despite the popular notions of the terms conservative and liberal.
To be a liberalist means that you believe government should intervene when there is a conflict between freedom and equality. All people should have a level playing field and in all cases, there should be fairness in society. Instead of letting people who were born into a bad situation be left unto themselves, liberals desire resources from the rich to be diverted to them so that they have an equal chance. Liberals also believe that rights and property are very important. John Locke positioned his version of liberalism as secularized Calvinism. That is to say, God gave the earth to Adam and hence to all men. When any man mixes a material of the earth with his labor, it becomes property. This is the basis for modern property rights thought in the West.
Alternatively, Conservatives believe that society is organic in nature. After society takes care of the basics such as order and safety, it becomes like an oak tree, constantly growing and changing. Conservatives argue that rights don't exist outside the natural order of society. Therefore, if rights can only exist within the confines of society and those who leave it are not entitled to its protection. Government has a role in society, but it should be limited and not used to create a level playing field. Instead, conservatives desire to see people trained to live virtuous lives. Through virtuous actions, those who are disadvanted can receive all the benefits of education and opportunity.
Modern Communitarian thought has its origins in Conservatism and is a response to and a critique of Liberalism. In criticizing Liberal thinking, Communitarianism recognizes several of its weaknesses but fails to keep itself from crashing into the hard rocks of reality. After analyzing both ideologies carefully, it becomes apparent that while Communitarianism emphasizes the ideal and appeals to the greatest number of people, it cannot cope with real world problems like power and greed. Additionally, we should take care to note that central to any analysis of these two ideologies is their different concepts of liberty.
To understand Communitarianism, we have to realize that it was formed in response to Liberalism. John Locke, the17th century British philosopher is considered to be the first politically liberal thinker. To Locke, rights were universal and everyone had the right to life, liberty, and property. He changed the relationship between the government and the people from the Hobbesian idea of Leviathan, to one where the people are governed by consent. Furthermore, the people are only under obligation to any government as long as it does not violate their rights. Such a violation may even be grounds for the government's overthrow and the establishment of a new government.
In the 19th century, John Stuart Mill added to liberal thought new ideas, particularly in relationship with democracy. Mill feared that the new tide of democracy would stifle individual thought by forcing the people to conform to the public will. He countered this by stating, "That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others." In all of Mill's writings we can see great emphasis on liberty and freedom.
Isaiah Berlin, a 20th century liberal thinker, responded to Mill's notions of liberty. He contended that Mill was wrong about how liberty is formed and used in society. Instead of liberty being a requirement for independent thought, Berlin stated that liberty, or freedom, is inherent to the existence of men and proposes two main types: negative and positive.
Negative freedoms are those that free us from government domination. The Bill of Rights is a good example: granting the people freedom to bear arms, speak their minds, and the separation of church and state. Since the Constitution is a liberal document, the freedoms it espouses are designed to limit government regulation and create a more liberated society.
This is in contrast to the Declaration of Independence, which is much more conservative. Berlin tells us that the freedoms declared in it are positive. That is to say the God given rights of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" are freedoms to do something. These are liberties that cannot be broached by government or men. It is this idea of something higher than the state which sets liberal thinking apart from prior ideologies.
John Rawls, a contemporary of Berlin, added to Democratic Liberalism the idea of the deontological self. Rawls rejects the conservative notion that people can make themselves into whatever they want to be without limits. This is frequently taught to children with the claim that they can be anything from a fireman, an astronaut to a doctor or the President. Instead, he claims that because people have limited abilities beyond their control, such as a low IQ or physical handicap, he or she cannot achieve literally anything not matter how hard they try. Rawls also tells us that the individual has the ultimate decision-making power over his or her life, not an external entity.
Also in contrast to conservatives, Rawls has a very different idea of justice. Conservatives believe that justice is served when all people are allowed to live their lives to the fullest of their individual capacities. They believe that the highest virtue is liberty, not justice. Rawls takes issue with this because of the social inequalities that result. He would have society live so that the minimums were maximized. That is, money and opportunity should be taken from the rich so that those with the least can have a level playing field. We see evidence of this in today's society with programs like affirmative action and welfare.
Conservatism and Liberalism developed side by side as ideologies, with important Conservative contributions by Edmund Burke in the 18th century, Alexis de Tocqueville in the 19th century and Michael Oakeshott in the 20th century. Conservatism was born partly in response to Liberalism, especially the fear that as a liberal government grows in power; it will be able to trample on the rights of its people. Burke sees the French Revolution as a destructive thing: uprooting the traditions, rights and values of a civil society instead of just the issues that fomented revolution. Tocqueville views a liberal government as a father figure with control over its citizen's individual lives. Oakeshott urges states to minimize their interference and regulation among the citizenry. This argument over the scope and power of a state government continues today between conservatives and liberals.
Republicanism is the marriage of Berlin's negative freedoms with traditional conservative thought. Negative freedoms are important to republicans because they check the liberal government and prevent it from becoming too powerful. Conservative thinkers emphasize the idea of checking government power. Thomas Jefferson and Theodore Roosevelt are good examples of republican minded leaders.
Communitarianism therefore, is a combination of republicanism and Berlin's view of Liberalism and was formed in America in response to the domination of Liberalism in political thought. Communitarians are liberal because they are Americans and Americans believe in individual rights. They are also conservative because they share the notion that individual identity stems from the attachments people have with each other. Both Communitarians and Conservatives ask the question: Do liberal views of civil society destroy the attachments that are central to individual identity in the name of liberty and justice?
Michael Sandel, a Communitarian philosopher, criticizes Rawls in his paper, Liberalism and the Limits of Justice. Sandel argues that the ideas of community Rawls envisions are too weak to accomplish Rawls' ideas of justice. Because Rawls demands that the rich sacrifice in order to level the playing field for the poor, the citizens of this society would have to have very strong bonds to it. This means that if the people have such strong bonds with their society that this sacrifice would be possible, it would be logical to conclude that such sacrifice would be voluntary and not compulsory. Therefore, government intervention is not required and freedom is not violated to enforce justice.
Also, instead of focusing on the symptoms of the problems of civil society as Rawls does, we should concentrate on the reasons why people are self-serving and individualists. Communitarians believe that if emphasis were placed on creating a civil society that produces strong interpersonal bonds, such problems would disappear as a byproduct of the resultant society. The building of a strong community through faith based initiatives, within economic communities, or by government sponsorship, will allow civil society to create these bonds that will automatically minimize the maximums without a sacrifice of freedom.
Obligation is to the society, not necessarily to the government. Community members generally benefit from the sharing of resources and responsibilities and therefore, have an interest in seeing it continue. Power is managed by eliminating any single source of power and distributing it amongst the members of society. This prevents abuses of power by government and individuals.
Communitarianism is appealing to many people because of the ideals of liberty, freedom and automatic equality. However, like most other political theories, it fails to address all issues and actually creates additional problems. Critics of Communitarianism cite the "experiments" performed by religious groups like the Shakers, Mennonites and Latter-day Saints. These groups all attempted to institute a community based organization where each person contributed to the whole.
What the critics found is that Locke's view of human nature reared its ugly head and led to the destruction of the order. Instead of strong community bonds, there appeared "free riders" that received every benefit but did not contribute. Without a strong, central governing body; disputes, contention, and disorder were rampant. Justice and equity became so difficult to maintain, that they were forced to abandon Communitarianism and adopt more liberal or conservative governments.
Furthermore, while obligation to the society can be strong for those that receive the most from it, such as the poor or undereducated, it can be powerfully disenfranchising to those with money and means. Control over the creation and distribution of goods in this model is not clear either, leading to a breakdown of the economy and social order. Frequently, this scenario has caused the rise of someone to impose order on the society. Therefore, neither the realization of blanket obligation nor the complete management of power is achieved in a Communitarian style government.
In choosing between Liberalism and Communitarianism, I believe that the most valid ideology is that of Liberalism. It is better equipped to handle the problem of power by empowering the citizens, enabling them to choose a government. Liberalism consolidates and emphasizes rights and each member of society is more important than the government. This also creates a sense of obligation by allowing the people to decide their fate and creates an interest in their future.
Communitarianism by contrast, fails to control power or create enough obligation to sustain a society built on these ideals. Although it is appealing to those who would benefit from a more even distribution of wealth, it has yet to be applied to the real world with much success. Liberalism is by far, a more valid theory for modern civil society than Communitarianism.
