The Republicans and the Democrats have distinctively different philosophies on a wide range of issues. The Republicans tend to be more conservative on virtually all subjects as opposed to the Democrats who take liberal positions. As such, a conservative Republican position denotes one that is conservative in its approach. On the other hand, the liberal democratic position leans to the left and is not conservative. In order to shed some light on these diametric positions, this paper shall conduct an overview of the various philosophies that inform the two schools of thought. Next, this paper shall apply the models of Jacques Rousseau and John Stuart Mills and the jurists’ respective views to the two positions.
In essence, the republican position is usually at the right end of the political spectrum, it supports the military and hates the bureaucracy usually associated with government. This position is characterized by a conservative preference both in the fiscal and social spheres. It is also predicated on the limited influence of government coupled with a dominant foreign policy. On the other hand, the liberal Democratic position is non-conservative and tends to favor an active government in the running of societal affairs. The liberal democratic position holds that active involvement of government in society by way of say environmental regulations is good for the society as it helps improve the welfare of the citizenry.
In the ensuing section, this paper shall examine Mill’s model in a bid to explain the two distinct positions through an examination of his works on liberal democracy. To start with, it must be set out that Mills was of the view that government is good so long as it is a promoter of the common good. This is especially so where the government is viewed as promoting the moral, intellectual and active characteristics of citizens. Despite the fact that Mill was a proponent of a limited government as evident in his works, On Liberty, Mill was no libertarian. Mill refused to buy the idea that a legitimate government is restricted to the protection of its citizens against fraud and force. On the contrary, Mill thought that there did exist several ways in which the government should intervene in the lives of citizens. In this intervention, Mill propounded various forms predicated on the government’s approach. The government could be either a coercer or a facilitator in order to facilitate the promotion of the common good. Mill was a utilitarian and was heavily influenced by Jeremy Bentham. As such, his claims relating to happiness implied that the good of each person is to be found in the exercise of his higher capacities. Such a feat can only be achieved where an individual leads an active life whereby his or her activities are regulated by personal deliberations and choices. He opined that since goodness of individuals was dependent on self-realization, it then followed that a government concerned with the common good of its citizens should concern itself with the fair provision of opportunities for welfare.
It is imperative to note that the liberalism as proffered by Mill is not laissez-faire and he even justified the essentials of liberalism as necessary for the achievement of the common good. Mill further argued that liberal neutrality placed a limit on the justification of action by the state. Liberal governments are supposed to enforce individual rights and other demands of justice. More so, each individual in a liberal democracy is free to form and pursue their own perception of the “good.” In addition, he asserted that the state should remain strictly neutral on matters of good since the state should not be in the business of regulating what should otherwise be a matter of personal conscience.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau in his work, The Social Contract states that the only legitimate authority or government is the one consented to by all people who have agreed to the government by entering a social contract for the sake of their mutual preservation. In his book, Rousseau describes different forms of government some of which may not seem democratic. However, his idea of liberal democracy involved ensuring that the general will of the people could be expressed in a true manner in government. He equally believed that the sovereign were the people who always had the right to have and express their will.
The social contract stands out as one of the key declarations of the natural rights of human beings in the history of political philosophy in the West. It acted to introduce the notion of the consent of the governed in society as a precursor to legitimacy of government. In addition, Rousseau made the case for the inalienability of the sovereignty of people as opposed to that of its rulers or leaders. This was Rousseau’s model of a liberal democracy. Indeed, the principle of the consent of the governed and the sovereignty of the people in true democracies has been touted as the foundation of modern principles that underlie contemporary conceptions of liberal democracy.
Works Cited
Mill, John Stuart. Considerations on Representative Government. New York: Cengage Learning , 1861.
Rousseau, Jean Jacques. Social Contract. New York: Simon and Schuster, 2010.
