Political Ideologies of the US - Essay Example

Political Ideologies of the U.S. Many political ideologies exist in the U.S. ranging from far right-wing conservatism to far leftist philosophy. Though varying political viewpoints among the general population may lie seemingly dormant for periods of time, events, or a series of events, causes an awakening of these deep-seeded feelings. Within the past few years, many such events have instigated a widespread emotional response by those who want change and others fighting to resist change. When a segment of society is relatively satisfied with the status quo, their political philosophy is seldom voiced but if not, the voices grow louder and larger in number which wakes the sleeping ideological giant. Ideologies are formed by a person’s innermost beliefs, cultivated by years of thought and shaped by life’s numerous experiences. An ideological debate causes a more emotive response in individuals than does any other. Political ideologies can never die and in politically turbulent times, such as these, are very much alive. The 9-11 attacks, abortion the war in Iraq, the loss of civil liberties, global warming, health care, gay marriage, stem cell research and many other politically motivating subjects have ignited emotional ideological battles. This discussion explains the reasons for and provides examples of the current ideological fervor in the U.S. and will explain the discrepancies of a failed conservative ideology, which has been a major factor in this awakening. The tenets of Liberalism proclaim a strong conviction in democracy and belief that the constitutional authority of the people will limit a powerful, expansive government. Liberal legislative leadership, partly through necessity, has instigated steady governmental growth well beyond where the architects of the constitution and most citizens would favor. The conservative ideology is based upon their interpretation of Christian-based morality. Conservatives are against the government regulating corporations but are very much for legislation that regulates the private conduct of individuals and for advancing their religious agenda regardless of the irreparable damage to civil rights and liberties or the scientific or constitutional evidence that is contrary to their opinion. Abortion, stem cells, teaching evolution and gay marriage are preeminent examples of current ideological debates between Conservatives and Liberals. Those of a conservative ideology are against legalizing abortion. They believe it to be murder and are crusading to save babies’ lives. However, conservatives are also against funding prenatal care programs and post-natal welfare type programs designed to feed and clothe small children. Liberals believe this logic to be contradictory (Lakoff, 2002). Both opponents and supporters of abortion rights have become increasing vocal since it became legal in the U.S. (Klitsch, 1990). People opposed to legal abortions are also in the same camp that opposes programs that aid the impoverished and abused children who are the result of unwanted pregnancies. They point to ‘Christian morals’ and ‘family values’ as justification for the loss of liberty, discrimination of the poor and the increased cases of injured women. Though the legality regarding the Roe v. Wade (1973) decision can be easily argued, it must be admitted that since the issue remains strongly argued more than 30 years after, opponents may be justified in believing the right to an abortion should not be thought of as fundamental. Fundamental rights continue to prove basic truths in the operation of a society. Court rulings that prevented the segregation of the races are now accepted by the public and so can be viewed as fundamental rights. Abortion rights do not enjoy this generally agreed upon view so it is fair to debate the issue even on legal grounds though that is seldom the arena for debate. It is understood, however, that the majority of Americans do agree with the Court’s decision and believe it to be a fundamental right (Dorf, 2003). The moral dilemma that surrounds the prohibition of aborted fetuses is the idea of abortion itself. The Bush administration has made it very clear that it is opposed to legal abortions, in at least most circumstances, and has transferred this ideology to its prohibition of embryonic stem cell research. The concept of scientific study of the next stage of development, the fetus, which resulted from an abortion, is unthinkable. This ideology of the administration reflects the minority which opposes abortion and also reflects the majority that is opposed to aborted fetuses of consenting parents being used for experimentation. This reality has no basis in reason. Why would those who claim to be ‘pro-choice’ want to waste the aborted tissue and why would pro-lifers want to witness what they believe is a living being tossed away in vain? At least its ‘life’ could have meant something to humanity in a very real way. In 1999 alone, more than 850,000 abortions were performed in the U.S. (Elam-Evans et al, 2002). The three main objectives given for pursuing stem cell research are obtaining vital scientific information about embryonic development; curing incapacitating ailments such as Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s and testing new drugs instead of having to use animals (Irving, 1999). Stem cell research is also expected to aid victims of stroke, spinal cord injuries, bone diseases and diabetes. The scientific techniques for obtaining stem cells could lead to unparalleled advances and even cures for these and other ailments. It has been substantiated from animal research that stem cells can be differentiated into cells that will behave appropriately in their transplanted location. For example, the transplantation of stem cells following treatments for cancer has found much success for many years. “Experiments such as the transplantation of fetal tissue into the brains of Parkinson’s patients indicate that the expectation that stem cell therapies could provide robust treatments for many human diseases is a reasonable one” (Frankel, 1999). In 2004, the Senate rejected a Constitutional amendment that specifically banned gay marriage by a 49-48 vote. It was not expected to pass and would have certainly died in the House of Representatives. The vote had nothing to do with amending the Constitution. The proceedings were for purely political purposes, to satisfy the ideological link to the conservative base. Unfavorable polling numbers have Republicans trying to rally their base by showing public support for this emotional issue. This strategy worked for President Bush in the 2004 election. Liberals claim that this is a civil rights issue and whether or not they endorse this particular lifestyle will strongly act to defend the concept of gay marriage, or civil unions, based on this closely held ideology. Opponents of gay marriage claim that legalizing it will serve to endorse homosexuality however; the number of gay people will hardly change in either direction simply because of legislation (Tucker, 2006). Creationism, creation science, and the intelligent design theory are similar terms that religious factions have used to explain origins of the universe that they want inserted into public education. Those that subscribe to creationism believe that God created the universe and then created man according to the explanation of creation offered in the Bible. Conservatives make much of their case around the claim that evolution has yet to be proven, yet it has been proven in the same way that scientists prove any other profoundly and commonly held scientific theory. Evolution, because of the serious religious implications, is held up to a higher standard of proof. Gravity is universally accepted as true although it is a theory no more positively proved than is the theory of evolution. Many religious people of the 15th century believed the earth was flat while scientists and intellectuals such as Aristotle 2000 years earlier knew that it wasn’t (Jones, 2005). Attempts to establish religious beliefs into public school systems would certainly cause some teachers and students to be offended and, although Christianity is the predominant religion in the U.S., the Constitution serves to protect the minority. Our country’s history has, for the most part, been free of sectarian conflicts that have beleaguered other areas of the world because the Constitution dictates that religion is free from governmental control and vice versa. “A union of government and religion tends to destroy government and degrade religion” (Black, 1962). Neo-conservatism is a relatively recent categorization of a political ideology which has infiltrated the culture and been embraced by the current Bush administration. Conservatives and neo-cons are generally affiliated with the Republican Party but are often on opposing sides of an issue, the most significant example being the invasion and occupation of Iraq from 2003 to present. Neo-conservatives have been described as inherently evil, protectionists and self-absorbed capitalists but also, by a growing minority, as the protectors of the American way of life. With regards to foreign policy, neo-cons advocate a strike-first mentality while conservatives promote a ‘hands-off’ policy. Although warnings about the human generated causes of an enhanced greenhouse effect and the subsequent catastrophic outcomes have been sounded for over 100 years, global warming has only recently become an important political matter for Bush but only because of political reasons. He and the neo-con ideology he serves continue to ignore the looming problem because the issue does not address their major concern, perceived foreign threats. Neo-conservatism began as a hawkish yet compassionate branch of the left-wing. Over time, those of a liberal ideology abandoned the neo-cons to the far-right-wing which has a narrow and rigid view of the government’s role in foreign and domestic affairs. In simplistic terms, neo-cons are in favor of forcefully imposing the will of the U.S. onto other countries and, in essence, ignoring domestic issues. The neo-con take-over of the highest office in the land has cost the nation dearly on many fronts. One can only trust that the people of this country have learned a lesson from the myopic and destructive ideology of neo-conservatism. Ideology is a powerful motivator. Many millions of people throughout history have fought and died for one. Ideologies can be clear and distinctive or complex and vague but they are always alive though at times dormant during relatively calm political and social periods. When the ‘train runs off the tracks,’ thoughts are transformed into actions thus giving viability and life to ideologies. The past six years, the federal government has ignored global warming and concentrated on the ‘war on terrorism.’ The liberals and conservatives have taken sides on these most imperative of issues with both sides claiming ideological differences. Whether a person believes that the earth evolved by accident or was created in six days, which ideology thinks it right to destroy it? What ideology can explain invading and occupying a sovereign nation that did not attack first? Some issues go well beyond simple ideological leanings. If politics were debated and decided based on competing ideologies alone without other motivating factors such as greed, power and domination becoming the deciding factor, the world would be a much better place. Works Cited Black, Justice. “Engel et al v. Vitale et al.” This Nation.com. 370 U.S. 421 (1962). April 7, 2008 Dorf, Michael D. “Was Roe v. Wade Rightly Decided? Will it be Overruled?” CNN Law Center. (January 23, 2003). April 7, 2008 Elam-Evans, Laurie D.; Strauss, Lilo T.; Herndon, Joy; Parker, Wilda Y.; Whitehead, Sara; & Berg, Cynthia J. “Abortion Surveillance – United States, 1999.” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. Atlanta, GA: Center for Disease Control, November 13, 2002. Frankel, Mark. “Stem Cell Research and Applications: Findings and Recommendations.” Stem Cell Research and Applications Scientific, Ethical and Policy Issues. American Association for the Advancement of Science and Institute for Civil Society. (November 1999). April 7, 2008 < http://www.aaas.org/spp/sfrl/projects/stem/findings.htm> Irving, Dianne N. “Stem Cell Research: Some Pros and Cons.” Written on request of Fr. Thomas King, S.J., Ph.D., Department of Theology, Georgetown University; President, University Faculty For Life, for their newsletter, UFL Pro-Vita, (October 15, 1999). Jones, Arthur. “Workshop: Myth and Fraud in Science Teaching from Copernicus to Darwin in the Textbooks and Popular Literature of Science.” (March 11, 2005). Dordt College. April 7, 2008 < http://center.dordt.edu/bjh_conference/2005/myth%20and%20fraud.htm> Klitsch, M. “Americans Became More Committed to Both Sides of Debate Over Abortion During the Past Decade.” Family Planning Perspectives. Guttmacher Institute. (1990). April 7, 2008 Lakoff, George. Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think. (2nd Ed.). University of Chicago Press. (2002). “Roe v. Wade.” OYEZ. U.S. Supreme Court Media. (1973). April 7, 2008 Tucker, Brian. “Constitutional Amendments to Ban Gay Marriage.” Crain’s Cleveland Business. Vol. 27, I. 24, June 12, 2006. Read More