Republicanism and Liberalism

Today in the USA, the Republican party stands for small government. While the Democracts, the more liberal party, are seen as the party of strong government and centralisation (by US standards).

However, now that I'm studying the history of the two ideologies, their fundamental beliefs seem to have been the otherway around.

On the republican side, the early theorists took a very collectivist approach. Studying Rousseau, he seems to be in many ways some kind of proto-communist. The talk of a collective will of all those in the 'social contract' as being in the hands of a minority who, rather than accepting the people's actual will, instead make laws based on what they ought to will for the common good; smacks of Lenin's idea of a dictatorship of the proletariat, from his belief that the people do not know what is good for them and so the government must rule them for their own good. In some ways, it seems that Marx's ideology is simply an extension of Rousseau's, building on the idea of small, self-sufficient communes, and expanding the communal society to a global level.

In contrast, the liberal writers all for limiting the government. Locke for example saw it as merely existing to ensure the preservation of property, and that people were in fact surrendering natural rights in order to live under a constitution. Locke was amongst the first to come up with something resembling the modern system of checks and balances to limit the government from growing too powerful, through his legislative/executive/federative system.

So, why is the US Republican party the party of small government, and the Democrats seen as that of a stronger government? :inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

Today in the USA, the Republican party stands for small government.

---

Sorry to say, I stopped reading right there. You haven't really been keeping up on developments in this country for the last quarter-century, now have you?

Rhyfelwyr, your confusion is because the terminology of US politics (and increasingly elsewhere) bears little resemblance to the historical meaning of the words.

In a nutshell: Liberals are not, conservatives are not, and government of any colour is never small.

Quote:

---

Yesterday in the USA, the Republican party paid lip service for small government.

---

There I Fixed it for you.

Today in the USA, the Republican party doesn't even pay lip service anymore.

First post in the Backroom.:beam:

The libertarian party is for small government.








And small parties. ~;p

Classical Liberalism - limited government, individual liberty and responsibility, etc.

Conservatism - commitment to tradition.

Progressivism - commitment to building a better future by design.

American conservatives are committed to the tradition of classical liberalism. The far left is not liberal at all, they are progressive. Liberal is a ruined word in the American political context, it includes many opposite meanings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mangudai

American conservatives are committed to the tradition of classical liberalism. The far left is not liberal at all, they are progressive. Liberal is a ruined word in the American political context, it includes many opposite meanings.

---

That's a peachy assessment, but reality would show otherwise.

Without going into the specifics of any administrations, I meant the more general associations with the ideologies that the parties bear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

Without going into the specifics of any administrations, I meant the more general associations with the ideologies that the parties bear.

---

Both the Republican and Democratic parties are big government parties, though one or the other may claim otherwise. They just want to focus the big government in different directions.


Its guns vs. butter, as they say.


The small government parties, such as Libertarian and Green, both want a smaller government, but again want what remains focused in different directions.

Welcome to the Backroom, Fiddling_nero! Great name. :balloon2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

So, why is the US Republican party the party of small government, and the Democrats seen as that of a stronger government? :inquisitive:

---

Liberalism was once the left. Then the various socialist movements developed and pushed classical liberals to the centre.

The US has no meaningful communist, socialist, social democratic or Labour party. Hence, the Democrats took over the function that these parties fulfill in Europe, and combined them with the function of the traditional liberal party in Europe. These are conflicting demands. Through this, the Democrats changed from a proper 'Liberal' party to a semi social-democratic one.

The Republicans are America's extreme right, it's Christian-democratic, and it's conservative party all in one. The Republicans took over the functions that these parties fulfill in Europe. As on the left, these currents likewise have conflicting interests as well - some favour small government, or pro-business, or social prescripment of moral values, others not. They all winded up in one party, with confusing results.

In case you would like more information on the full range of political parties in the U.S.:


Here's a directory of all of the U.S.'s political parties.


Note, not all of these parties exist in all 50 states.

I rather like this one.

Quote:

---

Platform of the Boston Tea Party

The Boston Tea Party supports reducing the size, scope and power of government at all levels and on all issues, and opposes increasing the size, scope and power of government at any level, for any purpose.

---

Louisiana, as noted by Ralph Nader in a recent interview, has one of the least restrictive ballot qualifications for candidacy. So every presidential election I have a wide plethora of potential leaders to choose from. ~;p


For instance, the Prohibition Party still runs candidates every four years.


Edit:
Also, check out the Natural Law Party, "A Reason to Vote."

Liberal is everything on the left in America, but then again the real liberals, the libertarians, are on america's right. Confusing indeed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Liberal is everything on the left in America, but then again the real liberals, the libertarians, are on america's right. Confusing indeed.

---

Regan made large inroads to the Libertarians in the 80s.

Well despite the policies of Bush, I had always thought that the Republican party was accepted as a party of small government, or at least genuinely trying to espouse that ideology even if it didn't happen in reality. I was simply curious as to whether the parties had their modern views when they were founded, or whether they were in fact more similar to the labels the OP described, but having changed since then.

On an off-topic note, I feel I have to post this, possibly the most odd political party I have ever seen or ever will see:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Libertarian National Socialist Green Party - Politically correct Nazis? These Libertarian Green Nazis are either the strangest conglomeration of diametrically opposed political ideologies of a political party I have ever seen -- or one of the most wry political practical jokes found anywhere on the net (I'm not certain which conclusion is correct, but I strongly suspect the latter). This party purports to be comprised of atheist, peaceful, pro-gay, pro-drug legalization, anti-racist, environmentalist Nazis who acknowledge the Holocaust likely occurred (but are neutral as to its justification) and oppose the government sponsored killing of Jews, Christians & gays and the disabled. The LNSGP "rejects Judeo-Christian moral standards, victim mentality political behavior, capital-centric value systems, and authority." While membership is open to anyone regardless of their race or sexual orientation, individuals who openly profess a belief in either Judaism or Christianity are denied party membership. Articles, platform, FAQ and graphics. Worth a visit -- even if only to decide for yourself if this is a joke or if it is serious. In the past -- and as an indicator that the LNSGP is probably a practical joke -- the LNSGP's site had sections dedeicated to claims of participation in a public service project named the "Jewish Community Brothership" (to "Communicate the modern interpretations of Nazism and its implications for Jews in today's multicultural Reich") and some links to very bizarre "news" articles (example: "Nazi Moon Bases Established in 1942").

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

Well despite the policies of Bush, I had always thought that the Republican party was accepted as a party of small government, or at least genuinely trying to espouse that ideology even if it didn't happen in reality. I was simply curious as to whether the parties had their modern views when they were founded, or whether they were in fact more similar to the labels the OP described, but having changed since then.

---

Uh. Those were different times. Here:

Quote:

---

The Democratic Party emerged under Thomas Jefferson in the 1790s in opposition to the Federalist Party. It initially drew most of its support from Southern planters and Northern farmers. Its good organization and popular appeal kept it in power for most of the time between 1825 and 1860. This included John Quincy Adams (1825-1829), Andrew Jackson (1829-37), Martin Van Buren (1837-41), James Polk (1845-49) and Franklin Pierce (1853-47). and James Buchanan (1857-61).

The Republican Party was established at Ripon, Wisconsin in 1854 by a group of former members of the Whig Party and the Free-Soil Party. Its original founders were opposed to slavery and called for the repeal of the Kansas-Nebraska and the Fugitive Slave Law. Early members thought it was important to place the national interest above sectional interest and the rights of individual States.

---

From a nice British site for you, though haven't looked through it more than those two paragraphs. http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAdemocratic.htm

Louis has got it bang on.

If the Republican party was anywhere in Europe it would be 3 parties, the same for the Democrats.

There's an awfully good summary of the Repubs and their relationship to the "small government" (libertarian?) movement here.

For a long time, I was kind of amazed by the libertarian rhetoric of the GOP, the way that somebody could argue for torture and corporate welfare and unchecked police powers and massive deficits and a global empire, and then follow it up with “Because I believe in limited government and the free market.” The cognitive dissonance wasn’t what bugged me (I’m cynical enough to take it as a given that politicians know how to lie) but rather that they would even bother appealing to the small government crowd that they feel free to screw over. I mean, aren’t we, like, a minuscule faction?

And then it hit me–it was never about us. All those dog whistles that libertarians respond to whenever Republicans blow the whistle? Those were for other people. Second amendment? It’s a cultural thing, not principle. Free markets? Intellectual cover for corporate welfare. Limited government? This is their way of saying to the subsidized farmers of the Great Plains and the employees of the Military-Industrial Complex and all the other beneficiaries of GOP-style redistribution “Don’t worry, you aren’t a welfare recipient like all those city folks that I bash. You’re better than that. You’re a hearty, self-reliant person who supports limited government.”

I already knew that all of the stances that the libertarians like were just there for other elements of the GOP coalition. But I used to think that the “limited government” rhetoric was a way of fooling us. Nope, it was never about us. The fact that too many of us were fooled was a coincidence (one that Republicans probably still laugh about over drinks). It was for everyone else in the coalition. The fact that we fell for it was just a coincidence. The fact that some of us actually provided them with pet intellectuals was just icing on the cake.

American conservatives are nancy boys. Real conservatives know that strong government, firm government, a government that knows how to put a bit of stick about, is vital to make a country great.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by King Henry V

American conservatives are nancy boys. Real conservatives know that strong government, firm government, a government that knows how to put a bit of stick about, is vital to make a country great.

---

Well said. What happened to the conservative idea of the welfare state?

Well I suppose the new right is what happened, but I don't understand why social conservatism cannot coincide with somewhat socialist economic principles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by King Henry V

American conservatives are nancy boys. Real conservatives know that strong government, firm government, a government that knows how to put a bit of stick about, is vital to make a country great.

---

Spoken like a true European :wink:

Government is best kept small inept and scared. That way the people may have a chance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yoyoma1910

That's a peachy assessment, but reality would show otherwise.

---

Agreed. Republicans know how to talk the talk, but they have not been willing to walk the walk.

Capitalists and Christians are uneasy bedfellows. They can get along fine in a moderate zone. But, the radicals in each faction tend to alienate the other faction.

US politics has always mangled these things together. Yes, Louis, you are quite correct. By European standards, US political parties are coalitions. In many ways, this is what makes "bipartisanship" so difficult. We already have the kinds of coalition-building you see as normal to forming a government required just to form the political party.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

Spoken like a true European :wink:

Government is best kept small inept and scared. That way the people may have a chance.

---

The people? The people? My dear fellow, surely you can't trust people, ordinary people, to do what they really want? The people doesn't know what it wants. Of course, they think they know what they want. A new shiny car, crummy plops for breakfast, dolphin-friendly potatos. But these are just things that they've been told that they need by however wants to make some dosh. How can they know what they want? Ask the average man in the street who, say, Aristotle, was, and they'd probably answer that it was the name of the man who ran the local kebab shop. Placing your faith in such people is like trusting children to properly run a sweet factory. Therein lies madness, my friend.

Not that I'm an expert on these issues, but where did you get the idea that :

1 - Rousseau is a proto-communist
2 - Rousseau agreed with the domination of a minority over the majority.
3 - the US republican party is somehow linked to traditional "republicanism" (is that a word btw ?)

As for how I see things, the fact that Rousseau advocated the creation of a Republic doesn't link him in any way with the Republican party.
Kant was also partly promoting the idea of Republic, yet I hardly see any link between his work and the Republican party.

Both were politically liberals by their time standards (and Kant would probablty stil be classified as a liberal nowadays).

Now, the question is, are Rousseau's ideas the official basis of the Republican party doctrine ? I doubt so, and I sincerely hope I'm right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yoyoma1910

The small government parties, such as Libertarian and Green, both want a smaller government, but again want what remains focused in different directions.

---

Greens are big government - just a small government in terms of interfering with the lives of citizens.

Quote:

---

Now, the question is, are Rousseau's ideas the official basis of the Republican party doctrine ? I doubt so, and I sincerely hope I'm right.

---

No Rousseau had almost no influence that I can see on their party.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

Greens are big government - just a small government in terms of interfering with the lives of citizens.

---

No, the green party will replace the government with a nice shrubbery. One not too tall.

Bush blew the small government description out of the water for the next few years, I agree with Lemur.

My view on USA parties using my Left-Right dictomies:

Marxism-Leninism/Communism (Communist Party USA) -|- Left-Wing Radicals (Socialist Party USA) - Social Democrat (Labor Party/Green Party) - Social Conservative (Constitution Party) - Social Liberal (Democratic Party) - Market Liberal (Republican Party/Libertarian Party) -|- Fascism/National Socialism (National Socialist White People's Party)