No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.
Liberalism, Conservatism, and Americanism
Abstract
Lipset sets out to demonstrate the distinct differences between American and European notions of liberalism and conservatism. Tocqueville's coined term “American exceptionalism” reaffirms that social, political, and religious systems took a unique form in the United States. American liberals and conservatives alike have sought to extend the “good society” based on the Protestant ethic worldwide, though, ironically, both see their domestic opponents as advocates of immoral policies. The author concludes with an assessment of the current global movement toward classical liberalism: “We are all liberals-even the socialists and communists,” he asserts. As economic liberalism is not a panacea for the world's problems, Lipset predicts a return to the state-centric world in the not-so-near future.
... This is true for a substantively wide variety of issues, including social welfare spending, abortion, and foreign policy. As some have noted, however, the prevailing combinations of attitudes associated with the conservative and liberal labels are not entirely intuitive (e.g., Layman, Carsey, & Horowitz, 2006; Lipset, 1989). For example, a citizen who supports freedom of choice in the abortion domain might be expected to favor greater choice with regard to assisting the needy, as opposed to the government controlling such behavior through redistributive policy. ...
... Conservatism meant support for preservation of, or advocacy of caution in dismantling, these long-standing monarchical, religious, and aristocratic institutions (Davies, 1996, p. 812). Since this time, the specific political views said to go with conservatism and liberalism have changed (e.g., Lipset, 1989; Shils, 1954). Preference for free markets and minimal government intervention in the economy have historically been described as liberal; however, beginning in the 1930s, opposition to versus support of redistributive social welfare provision became associated in American discourse with the conservative and liberal labels, respectively (Ellis & Stimson, 2007). ...
... As described above, the associations between conservative–liberal identity and attitudes have changed over time, as has also been the case with party identity (Baldassari & Gelman, 2008; Sugar, Viney, & Rohe, 1992). This finding is consistent with historical observations of variability in the political preferences associated with the conservative and liberal (or right and left) labels (e.g., Lipset, 1989; Shils, 1954). It is likely the case that the connections among diverse issue preferences are driven to a great extent by discourse indicating how stances go with both party affiliations and the conservative and liberal labels. ...
To many commentators and social scientists, Americans’ stances on political issues are to an important extent driven by an
underlying conservative–liberal ideological dimension. Self-identification as conservative vs. liberal is regarded as a marker
of this dimension. However, past research has not thoroughly distinguished between ideological identity (a self-categorization)
and ideology (an integrated value system). This research evaluates the thesis that conservative–liberal identity functions
as a readiness to adopt beliefs and attitudes about newly politicized issues that one is told are consistent with the socially
prescribed meaning of conservatism–liberalism. In Study 1, conservative–liberal identity, measured in 2000, had an independent
prospective effect on support for invading Iraq in 2002 and support for the Iraq war in 2004, controlling for substantive
ideology, party identity, and demographics. In Study 2, conservative- and liberal-identifiers adopted stances on farm subsidy
policy based on randomly varied cues indicating which ideological group supports which stance. This cue-based influence was
mediated by adoption of attitude-supportive beliefs. Discussion addresses the joint impact of political discourse and identity-based
social influence on the organization of political attitudes.
KeywordsConservatism-Liberalism-Ideology-Political attitudes-Identity-Social influence
... 2) were changing. Whereas Canadians used to value the role of government in their lives (Lipset, 1989) there was now a decline in trust and confidence in government... [and an] overall decline in trust… towards authority and all forms of institutions" (Vail, 2000, p. 3). These institutions included the education system. ...
In this paper, I share findings from a historical investigation into how the Saskatchewan Teachers’ Federation’s (STF) Code of Ethics has evolved as a direct result of changing legislation. This study was based on the idea that codes of ethics are not stand-alone documents created by professional organizations to guide ethical behaviour, but policies that are a direct reflection of the relationship the profession has with the government in power. I demonstrate that the initial creation and all subsequent revisions of the STF Code of Ethics have never been independent of legislative changes. Rather, changes to the ethical code have been reactionary to political activity and dependent on the legislated changes made by the government in power.
... In our understanding, The Economist has a clearly defined and long-term ideological orientation, namely that of support for the free market. It upholds liberal economic values, grounding its perspective in political and economic liberalism, and assuming conservative positions on economic issues, including preserving property rights, minimising the role of the state, and encouraging free trade (Bobbio 2000;Locke 2001;Lipset 1989;Macpherson 1977Macpherson , 1985Nisbet 1996;Sartori 1994). ...
The purpose of this article is to analyse British media coverage of the Brazilian dictatorship. Specifically, we examine coverage by the weekly news magazine The Economist in the period from the promulgation of Institutional Act 5 in December 1968, to 1975, the second year of the Geisel administration. We compare its coverage with that of The Times and The Guardian in order to reach an understanding of its portrayal of Brazil in terms of two themes in particular: economic performance (notably the ‘Brazilian miracle’), and political repression. We relate the latter theme to the international condemnations of torture, and the disappearance of political prisoners. Furthermore, given that The Economist mainly covers issues from an economic perspective, we examine shifts in the frequency and content of articles about Brazil, and conclude that The Economist’s portrayal of Brazil in the period under review deviated from that of much of the rest of the British Press.
The author highlights the different ways in which countries measure standards of human rights and social justice within their borders and in other countries. Rigorous reporting of internal human rights violations is crucial in monitoring and evaluating human rights conditions, according to Howard, even in such wealthy countries as the United States and Canada, where malnutrition and abuse of basic human rights also exist.RHODA E. HOWARD is Professor of Sociology at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. She holds a Ph.D. in Sociology from McGill University. She is the author of Colonialism Underdevelopment in Ghana (Croom Helm, 1978) and Human Rights in Commonwealth Africa(Rowman and Littlefield, 1986), and coeditor (with Jack Donnelly) of an International Handbook of Human Rights (Greenwood, 1987). Professor Howard is also the Editor of the Canadian Journal of African Studies/Revue Canadienne des Etudes Afticaines.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.