• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

The ideology of the Democrats is liberal whilst that of the Republicans is Conservative. Discuss

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

The ideology of the Democrats is liberal whilst that of the Republicans is Conservative. Discuss 'Two glass jars with different labels, both empty'. This has been the traditional opinion of the differences between the parties ever since the federalist/anti-federalist issue was settled. However, in recent decades, we have seen the emergence of distinct ideological identities. That of liberalism - a belief that the federal government should have an active role in protecting the vulnerable & guaranteeing rights, and Conservatism - a belief that government should be restricted in order for the individual to achieve their potential. I will analyse to what extent the Democrats and Republicans adhere to these philosophies. Primarily, the Democrats have been associated with liberalism ever since FDR's New Deal of the 1930s. In this era, the government utilised Keynesian economics and expanded its reach nationally, helping the unemployed by providing jobs. ...read more.

Middle

We can therefore see large cleavages between the beliefs held between the parties, the Democrats attempt to pas liberal policies whilst Republicans try to pass conservative ones. In addition, Bush relieved the role of the Federal Government in some public utilities to the voluntary & private sector as part of his Compassionate Conservatism agenda. Again, this is an example of republican conservatism as it reduces the power of the government. More evidence supporting this can be found within Congress. Though Congress used to be bipartisan with the party line carrying little weight amongst senators and congress people, this is no longer the case. So far in the current congressional session, party unity has been around 92%. As congress lacks the strict whipping system found in the UK parliament, one can argue that the unity is down to the distinct beliefs of the parties- conservatism and liberalism. ...read more.

Conclusion

Bill Clinton, though initially attempting ambitious healthcare reform, declared the 'era of big government over', balanced the federal budget and passed social security reform. These can be said to be more conservative, even, then liberal. Similarly surprising, although Bush made large tax cuts, he also presided over the alrgest increase in the federal budget since LBJ's Great Society and he also extended the role of the Federal Government through the No Child Left Behind Act. We can therefore see that recent administrations of would-be liberal/conservative presidents have proved to be a mixed bag - not strictly adhering to either ideology. It is undeniable that the Democrat Party is liberal and the Republican Party is Conservative. However, the extent of this is far from 'clearly' cut. The nature of the US federal government means that differences will always exist within the parties - though this has been reduced in recent years. In conclusion, I believe that, broadly speaking, the two parties have distinct ideological identities however, there is still evidence to rebuke this and so therefore I agree mostly with the statement. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level United States section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Here's what a teacher thought of this essay

4 star(s)

Overall this is a good essay. It covers the arguments as to why the Democrats can be seen as liberal and why the Republicans can be seen as conservative well, using good examples to back up the points being made. However, despite the good elements of the essay it is slightly one sided. More emphasis is needed on why the labels of liberal/conservative might be too simplistic to describe the two main parties. By structuring the essay differently, with an argument supporting the statement followed by a counter argument, a more balanced argument would ensue.

Marked by teacher Jessica Jung 19/02/2012

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level United States essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    "The Main Difference Between the UK And US Constitution Is That One Is Flexible ...

    4 star(s)

    It can also interpret the constitution. But Congress can pass legislation or constitutional amendments to shape and mould the way in which the Supreme Court should interpret. The President also appoints Supreme Court judges and can extend his political feelings in his nominations. But they must be as said approved by the Senate.

  2. "The conflicting interests of the Great Powers made its failure inevitable." Discuss this verdict ...

    in Europe; and Prussia's concern with French attack, proves their conflicting aims. When there is no common purpose and when each and every one wants something different other than controlling Europe, it's very hard for an unorganized congress system to succeed.

  1. Do the strengths of the US constitution outweigh its weaknesses?

    Whilst this may be a strength in showing that the Constitution may not be as rigid as it first appears to be, it does also raise questions over potential weaknesses of the constitution, for example, is it right that a body of 9 member that aren't elected by the public have the ability to have such a major say?

  2. Compare and contrast the extent to which the Cabinet has an important part to ...

    1, Section 1, however the President has been able to claim a legislative role through the duties of the President outlined in Article 2, section 2, which include the fact he can recommend measures which he considers to be "necessary and expedient" in nature to Congress.

  1. "Presidents have only the power to persuade" discuss.

    The most important power a president has is the power to appoint Supreme Court judges. This gives a president the chance to have their image in place for a long period of time, after they are president. Some presidents are lucky enough to appoint a lot of judges like Raegen and bush, who together appointed 5 of the 9 justices.

  2. "Supreme Court Appointments are always controversial" Discuss

    New York City, it declared the Line Item Veto act unconstitutional. Therefore, we can see simply by the powers held by the Supreme Court that appointments have to be controversial, in order to ensure that the right appointment is made.

  1. The power of the President is limited to the power to persuade. Discuss.

    by vetoing or signing them, draft a budget (which Congress is usually disinclined to tamper with significantly)

  2. Is the USA still a federal state?

    However one must explore the reasoning behind the passing of these measures that characterized a ?big government?. Bushes? presidency was largely characterised by events to which he arguably reacted to. Consider 9/11; had this event not occurred would the Patriot Act and other respective security measures be legislated for?

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work