The Baha'i Studies Listserv
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism_by_country
The definition of liberal party is highly debatable. In the list below, a
liberal party is defined as a political party that adheres to the basic
principles of political liberalism. This is a broad political current, that
includes both left, centre and right wing. All liberal parties emphasise
individual rights, but they differ in their opinion on an active role for the
state.
After liberals have gained power and realized their first reforms, one often
sees a divergence within their ranks:
* Some are satisfied and rest apart with these reforms, developing into
liberal conservatives or simply becoming conservatives, mostly still adhering
to free market policies. An example is the Liberal Democratic Party (Japan).
These parties are not included in the overview.
* The mainstream of liberalism continues on the path of gradual
reforms, embraces electoral democracy as a basic liberal position and organizes
itself in the form of the traditional liberal parties. These parties are
included in the overview.
* Part of this mainstream is more right-wing, emphasizing classical
liberal issues and concentrating on economic liberalism. This is, for example,
the origin of libertarianism. Many people consider this a separate political
theory/current. Others argue that these parties are still liberal parties.
Therefore they are included in the overview.
* Another part of the mainstream is more left-wing. It embraces and
emphasizes democratic reforms and often strives for social reforms. These
parties sometimes prefer to name themselves radical or progressive liberal and
are generally quite positive about the role of the state in the economy, by
advocating Keynesianism for example, while continuing to support a market
economy. United States liberalism developed out of this tradition, also
referred to as social liberalism. Progressive liberals tend to use labels such
as "Radical", "Progressive", "Free-thinking" or simply "Democratic" instead of
"Liberal". These parties are included in the overview.
* For some liberals this does not go far enough: they joined social
democratic parties. They are not included in the list.
* Next to these development one sees the rise of new centrist or
pragmatic parties that share liberal values and develop into liberal or similar
parties. These parties are included in the overview too.
* Finally one sees liberals joining parties with a broader political
range. This happens especially in countries where the electoral system favors a
two-party system.
Note: In some cases the liberal current has steered into a populist direction
(e.g. the Freedom Party of Austria), while in other cases populist parties have
adopted the word "liberal" in their names (e.g. the Liberal Democratic Party of
Russia and the Lithuanian Liberal Democratic Party. These parties have only a
tenuous connection - if any - to liberalism.
Many liberal or similar parties are members of the Liberal International and/or
of its regional partners, like the European Liberal Democrat and Reform Party
and the Council of Asian Liberals and Democrats. Generally, membership in these
international organizations is an indication that a party is indeed liberal.
Therefore, all members are listed. However, some of them are quite centrist
parties whose liberal character is disputed by some.
I disagree with the sentiments of the intellectual left. It'd be too long to
disprove each and every tenent of the left. I'm paradoxically a right wing
liberal ie a classical liberal. I'll just describe me. I watch Fox News
Channel, watch Fox Business Network, subsribe to the Wall Street Journal,
subsribe to Reason magazine, subsribe to Cato Policy Report, subsribe to
Regulation magazine, am a Nichiren Shoshu True Mahayana Buddhist, donate to Tea
Party candidates, donate to Libertarian candidates, campaign for Tea Party
candidates, campaign for Libertarian candidates, am a member of the Libertarian
Party, etc. I have lots of books on my self by Bob Barr, Frederic
Bastiat, David Boaz, Neal Boortz, Harry Browne, Jim DeMint, Thomas
DiLorenzo, Ivan Elland, Pamella Geller, Nick Gillespie, James P. Gray, Daniel
Hannan, Daniel J. Ikenson, Friedrich Hayek, John Hospers, Gary Johnson, Steve
Kubby, Mike Lee, Rush Limbuagh, Brink Lindsey, Andrew
Napolitano, Tom Palmer, Rand Paul, Ron Paul, Charles Pena, Ayn Rand, Virginia
Postrel, Jean Raspail, Murray Netwon Rothbard, Wayne Allyn Root, Ed
Rosenthal, Mary Ruwart, John Stossel, Pat Toomey, Jesse Ventura, Matt Welch,
Thomas Woods, David J. Woodward, etc.
To summarize. I have infinite faith in humanity. I believe we can create a
framework for utopia (a term I got from Brian Patrick Mitchell). I don't
believe in either class or economic determinism or any of the other pillars of
Marxism for that matter. I'm a staunch anti-Communist who believes that
post-Cold War info vindicates McCarthy in hindsight. On a religious note, I
believe Nichiren Shoshu is in combination with free market classical liberalism
will bring a utopia of liberty, peace, prosperity, justice, etc.
This is due to the inadequacies of the political specturm and left righ
politics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left%E2%80%93right_politics
Some political scientists have suggested that the classifications of "left" and
"right" are no longer meaningful in the modern complex world. Although these
terms continue to be used, they advocate a more complex spectrum that attempts
to combine political, economic and social dimensions.[40]
However, a survey conducted between 1983 and 1994 by Robert Altemeyer of
Canadian legislative caucuses showed an 82% correlation between party
affiliation and score on a scale for right-wing authoritarianism when comparing
right-wing and social democratic caucuses. There was a wide gap between the
scores of the two groups which was filled by liberal caucuses. His survey of
American legislative caucuses showed scores by American Republicans and
Democrats were similar to the Canadian Right and liberals, with a 44%
correlation between party affilitation and score.[41]
Norberto Bobbio saw the polarization of the Italian Chamber of Deputies in the
1990s as evidence that the linear left/right axis remained valid. He thought
that the argument that the spectrum had disappeared occurred when either the
Left or Right were weak. The dominant side would claim that its ideology was
the only possible one, while the weaker side would minimize its differences. He
saw the Left and Right not in absolute terms, but as relative concepts that
would vary over time. The key distinction was one of equality. The Right was
committed to inequality while the further left one went the more committed to
equality one was. In his view, the left/right axis could be applied to any time
period.[42]
The political philosopher Charles Blattberg has proposed response to conflict
as the basis of a reinterpreted political spectrum. According to Blattberg,
those who would respond to conflict with conversation should be considered as
on the left, with negotiation as in the centre, and with force as on the right.
See his essay "Political Philosophies and Political Ideologies."[43]
Libertarian writer David Boaz argued that terms left and right are used to spin
a particular point of view rather than as simple descriptors, with those on the
"left" typically emphasizing their support for working people and accusing the
right of supporting the interests of the upper class, and those on the "right"
usually emphasizing their support for individualism and accusing the Left of
supporting collectivism. Boaz asserts that arguments about the way the words
should be used often displaces arguments about policy by raising emotional
prejudice against a preconceived notion of what the terms mean.[44]
__________________________________________________
You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:[email protected]
Unsubscribe: send a blank email to
mailto:leave-659313-27401.54f46e81b66496c9909bcdc2f7987...@list.jccc.edu
Subscribe: send subscribe bahai-st in the message body to [email protected]
Or subscribe: http://list.jccc.edu:8080/read/all_forums/subscribe?name=bahai-st
Baha'i Studies is available through the following:
Mail - mailto:[email protected]
Web - http://list.jccc.edu:8080/read/?forum=bahai-st
News (on-campus only) - news://list.jccc.edu/bahai-st
Old Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
New Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
