Home >> History, Ideology & Science >> Political Theory

     Email   Print 

Third World Libs and Neo-Cons

John Mangun - 2/12/2005

Liberal. Neo-Conservative. These terms are American in nature and probably not accurate, based on the historical roots, to describe the political philosophies that they have come to represent. Even so, the intellectual images they conjure up are clear, if not always and completely consistent. They have come to dominate the way many world governments formulate and conduct their policies.

The political "isms" that blossomed predominately in the 19th and 20th centuries replaced the more simplistic monarchies that dominated the prior millennium. Political thought was certainly simpler back then: nations ruled by a 'good' king or 'bad' king but the authority rested in the sovereign who was "The State". The 18th century democracies of America, France, and Great Britain were the aberrations, not the standard by any measure. However, ultimately, the "isms" failed to replace the onward march towards participatory democracy.

For some one hundred years, political theoreticians struggled to find a balance between the power of the government and the power of the people as democracy tried to find its maturity. Too much power on one side headed towards the extreme concentration of the monarchy; too much 'people power' could lead towards state collapse and anarchy.

The contrasting political viewpoints we call "Liberal" and "Neo-Conservative" embody this search for a balance of power. It is a question of who has the power, the "people" or the "government", and that power comes from which side makes the decisions. It may not be intellectually pretty, but it is unmistakably a power struggle over who controls the decision making process.

An inseparable and critically important aspect of decision-making is responsibility. If you are making the decisions, then you are taking the responsibility surrounding those decisions away from someone else. The parent decides what food the child will eat and the child has no responsibility for acquiring, preparing, etc. what is on the table. If a person is responsible for obtaining something to eat, then they can decide what the meal should be.

Our lives can roughly be divided into two broad areas; economic and social. Economic encompasses the methods and processes of wealth creation and subsequently using that wealth. Social covers personal behavior and interaction. Or put another way, Money Values and Moral Values.

It may be intellectually simplistic, however, I believe in the real world the difference between Libs and Neo-Cons comes down to who makes the decisions in the above two areas. Libs want the government to control the economic life and let the individual control the social aspects. Neo-Cons give the individual control over the money and want government to set the moral standards.

Liberals will determine your wages, the hours you work, the money you keep after taxes, and will use those taxes to provide many basic economic needs such as health care and education. The government takes a major responsibility for your personal wealth creation. In the Third World as in the First, politicians are elected on the premise that it is government responsibility to make you financially comfortable. Other issues for example like pollution and the environment need government control, as individuals cannot be trusted with these.

Libs want specific and intense jurisdiction over your economic life while at the same time allowing great individual freedom over social concerns such as abortion, speech, and other life style choices. Government should stay out of the bedroom and limit itself to the bank account. Economically, the responsibility lies with the state because the individual is not as capable and individuals abuse their economic power.

Neo-Cons provide broad economic frameworks in which the individual is responsible to create his own wealth. Less regulation, fewer taxes, less restriction on your money, but moral conduct and standards need to be set and controlled by the government. Individual social behavior must be limited, as moral excesses will occur.

In my corner of the Third World, the Philippine politicians are some of the most "Liberal" on the planet. Poverty is the government's responsibility and "the reason you are poor is because past administrations have failed you". Labor laws are designed to be blatantly biased pro-labor. However, starting an individual personal business is simple with few restrictions and as a result, entrepreneurs are common and self-made millionaires are many. Small businesses have an environment where they can thrive with higher profit margins than the First World could imagine. Yet, abortion and divorce will not be legal in the near future.

Unfortunately, the individual does not know who they want to be in charge, be responsible, and make the decisions. People who pay their full legal taxes are rare but they severely criticize and blame government for inadequate education and the poor environment. So we are neither Lib nor Neo-Con but maybe the worst of both.

Perhaps the Neo-Cons may be proven right in the U.S. as its national roots are planted in the individual's right of economic determination. Liberal Europe may flourish, as it has for centuries been looking for a 'king' be it Charlemagne, Napoleon, or the EU Parliament. However, my experience in different parts of the Third World shows that there is little political philosophical clarity seen in the First. We call it adaptation and pragmatism but too often, I see that meaning appropriating what is convenient without regard to what is useful.

Third World leaders have failed their nations and their nations have failed because few have made the effort to determine a method of governance suitable for their local circumstances. It is easier to copy the First World and be unsuccessful.