| Papers [1-15] of 100 :: [Page 1 of 7] | | Go to page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 —> | Search results on "REALISM LIBERALISM RADICALISM": |
|
|
Realism, Liberalism and Radicalism, 2005.
This paper compares three political theories--realism, liberalism and radicalism--and their stand on international relations especially war.
1,345 words (approx. 5.4 pages), 6 sources, MLA, $ 45.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that realism, liberalism, and radicalism assert that the state should promote the best interests of a specific group above all else: For realists, the interests of the state are paramount; for liberals, individual and, for radicals, the interests of the majority should be promoted above both the interests of the state and the interests of individuals. The author points out that the differences dictate the way war is viewed: For realists, war is necessary when it is in the best interests of the state; for liberals, war is never in the best interests of the individual and, for radicals, international war is usually not in the best interests of the majority, but civil war in the form of violent revolution is very much in the majority's interests. The paper concludes that the best ways of engaging in or avoiding international conflict can be deduced from each of these general principles.
Table of Contents
Introduction
Realism
Liberalism
Radicalism
Conclusion
From the Paper
"According to the realist view, war is caused when two or more nation-states compete for the same resources. These resources may be of any sort. If all of the nations involved are pursuing their own interests, a conflict-possibly a violent conflict-will inevitably result. When this occurs, it is the state's obligation to fight the war in whatever manner is in the state's best interests. This could involve devoting all of the state's resources to the war, or saving some resources on reserve if a drawn-out war is expected. When it is no longer in the state's best interests to fight the war, it must surrender or use another method for the cessation of hostility."
| |
|
Realism, Liberalism and Radicalism, 2006.
This paper examines how realism, liberalism and radicalism are used in describing and implementing general political ideologies.
1,350 words (approx. 5.4 pages), 6 sources, APA, $ 45.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper details how realism, liberalism and radicalism systems hold certain social, political and economic principles which result in each system taking a specific stand on international relations. This paper details the history of each system and contends that for realists the interests of the state are paramount, while liberals hold that individual interests are more important that the interests of the state and that radicalism views the interests of the majority.
Topics covered in this paper include:
Introduction
Realism
Liberalism
Radicalism
Conclusion
Bibliography
From the Paper
"Since Marx there have been several different versions of radicalism, usually termed revisionist ideologies. In particular, some have argued that violent revolution is not necessary to establish socialism. The alternative is a gradual reform of the existing government. This view is less radical in the strict sense of the word, but with regard to political systems 'radicalism' can more generally refer to any system which requires large-scale change of the existing national infrastructure."
|
| Term Paper # 85151 |
temporarily unavailable
|
|
|
|
Realism, Internationalism, and Liberalism, 2004.
A look at realist, international society, and liberal approaches to international order.
1,600 words (approx. 6.4 pages), 6 sources, APA, $ 52.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
In this paper, the writer distinguishes among the three most common theoretical approaches to international order. These approaches are realism, international society (internationalism), and liberalism. It begins by defining international order. The rest of the paper is divided into four sections. First, it compares the way proponents of realism, liberalism, and internationalism perceive the international order and the role of states within it. Secondly, it explains the goals of the realist, liberal, and internationalist approaches. Third, it compares how the international actors behave according to each approach and how they achieve their goals. Fourth, it outlines the limitations of the different approaches. The writer concludes by describing each theory's place in today's world.
From the Paper
"Before approaches to international order can be explored, international order itself must be defined. The international order is an anarchic system of states. It is "a pattern of activity that sustains the elementary or primary goals of the society of states or international society." International order is distinguished from world order in that world order refers to the most primary goals of humanity, not states. Although all approaches agree that international order is weak, classical realism assumes permanent anarchy, liberalism sees a global community, and internationalism sees the potential for a less violent, more lawful order."
| |
|
"Globalization: Neo-liberal Challenge, Radical Responses", 2006.
This paper examines author Robert Went's book "Globalization: Neo-liberal Challenge, Radical Responses" while focusing on the writer's view that the current trend towards globalizing the economy must be demystified and demythologized.
881 words (approx. 3.5 pages), 1 source, MLA, $ 31.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper reviews and analyzes the views of the author and Dutch economist Robert Went as detailed in his book "Globalization: Neo-liberal Challenge, Radical Responses." In his book, Went attempts to put the phenomenon of globalization in its proper historical perspective, rather than normalizing it as an inevitable and positive development from capitalism's supposed victory over world socialism. This paper also discusses Went's fears that life-threatening ecological deterioration and a pervasive dictatorship of the market will result from globalization. This paper explains and details Went's views on the nature of globalism, which the author contends has fundamentally changed for the worse due to the significant increase in the number integrated global markets.
From the Paper
"The first of the harms perpetuated by globalization are social inequality. 1960 the average income of the richest 20 per cent of the world's population was 30 times higher than that of the poorest 20 per cent. In 1995 this disproportion between the incomes of rich and poor had grown to 82:1, according to Went. If globalization is allowed to continue in its current form, Went warns that worldwide social inequality will intensify, that there will be a long lasting leveling of lower income and working class wages, and a general worsening of working conditions for all people, all over the world as an eventual result. Went also fears that life-threatening ecological deterioration and a pervasive dictatorship of the market will result from globalization, if the current pace of globalization is not kept in check and its form is not altered."
| |
|
Liberalism and Neo-liberalism, 2005.
This paper discusses theories of liberalism and neo-liberalism in international politics.
1,125 words (approx. 4.5 pages), 4 sources, $ 39.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
In this essay, the writer examines theories of liberalism and neo-liberalism in international politics. The writer discusses neo-liberalism as based in liberal democracy. The writer identifies limits of both theories. Further, the writer discusses major problems and limitations with each theory.
From the Paper
"According to sociologists, market-based economic policies have been institutionalized as a nearly global policy paradigm embodying first liberalism and later neo-liberalism. The purpose of this report is to discuss the theories of liberalism and neo-liberalism in studying international politics and to identify the limitations of these approaches. All such theories in the context of international relations are designed to solve the problems and puzzles of state behavior by offering a causal account of a particular outcome or pattern of behavior in ... "
| |
|
Liberalism, Neo-Liberalism, and International Politics, 2005.
An overview of the relationship between liberal and neo-liberal theories and international politics.
861 words (approx. 3.4 pages), 4 sources, APA, $ 30.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
According to sociologists, since the 1970s, market-based economic policies have been institutionalized as a nearly global policy paradigm embodying first, liberalism, and later, neo-liberalism. The purpose of this report is to discuss the theories of liberalism and neo-liberalism in studying international politics and to identify the limitations of these approaches.
From the Paper
"In neoliberalism, which developed in the final decades of the twentieth century, a set of economic principles became part of the accepted framework for thinking about and acting upon both the economy and the relations of states to one another. Neoliberalism assumed that a positive outcome both economically and politically would be generated through a wave of reforms ? privatizations, dismantling of social welfare programs, the retreat of the state from economic regulation, tax cuts, and the opening of national boundaries."
| |
|
?Liberated Parents, Liberated Children?, 2004.
A review of the book, "Liberated Parents, Liberated Children: Your Guide to a Happier Family", by Adele Faber and Elaine Mazlish.
1,108 words (approx. 4.4 pages), 0 sources, $ 38.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines the book, "Liberated Parents, Liberated Children: Your Guide to a Happier Family", by Adele Faber and Elaine Mazlish, which discusses their experiences attending a series of parent workshops given by child psychologist, Dr. Ginott. It looks at how its approach to parenting appears to be very simplistic in nature: do not control your children, but rather respect them for their individuality and uniqueness. It discusses how punishment is not an effective tool for establishing a trusting relationship, nor is a power trip, or being too protective or defensive. It shows how an adversarial relationship with a child will normally escalate or deteriorate as he/she gets older and becomes more defensive and less intimidated.
From the Paper
"Similarly, a child?s autonomy need not threaten a parent. Dr. Ginott saids, ?We help most by not helping.? How many parents are afraid of what will happen if their children fail? If their school project is not perfect or if their hair is sticking up or they wear clothes that are wrinkled? The problem is that the parents? self-esteem is so wrapped up in their children?s success or failure that it is taken as a personal affront. If the son a daughter does not make the team or get invited to a party, it is as if the parent did not make the grade. The child who is better prepared for the future is the one who has to remember to return his/her books to the library, finish a homework assignment or even makes the same mistake over again."
| |
|
?Liberated Parents, Liberated Children?, 2004.
A review of the parenting book, "Liberated Parents, Liberated Children: Your Guide to a Happier Family", by Adele Faber and Elaine Mazlish.
1,460 words (approx. 5.8 pages), 3 sources, MLA, $ 48.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines how authors Adele Faber and Elaine Mazlish wrote their counter-cultural book, "Liberated Parents, Liberated Children: Your Guide to a Happier Family", regarding tips and tactics for parents to use as they raised children before the term ?counter-cultural? had become politically correct. It looks at how, in 1974, when the majority of children were being raised under the questionable, permissive advice of Dr. Spock, these authors focused on another aspect of child rearing. It looks at how they were significantly influenced by child psychologist Haim Ginott ,who believed that it was the emotional well-being of the child that would guide his actions.
From the Paper
"This differentiation between giving of ourselves to our children, and giving ourselves over to our children is the delicate line which Mazlish and Faber walk throughout their book as they discuss skills for parents to learn to build emotionally balanced and self-secure children. The approach which encourages parents to remain in their authority role in the child?s life, as well as equips the parent to connect with the child?s feeling is the element of this book which sets it apart from other works. Dr. Spock taught parents to reason with their children rather than correct them. By doing so, the well intentioned doctor instructed parents to abdicate an important role in their children?s development, which is the role of authority to which the child is accountable."
| |
|
International Political Economic Studies, 2005.
An assessment of the relevance of realism, liberalism, and radicalism to the contemporary political economy.
3,374 words (approx. 13.5 pages), 6 sources, MLA, $ 95.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper looks at how the realist and liberal perspectives can be used to explain and provide insight into the international political economy within the context of globalization. It then compares these perspectives to the structuralist perspective and argues that the structuralist perspective provides the greatest and most useful insights into globalization and contemporary international political economy.
From the Paper
"The realist perspective of IPE, or international relations and international economic relations between states, may be one of the most enduring of the three explanatory and theoretical models referred to in the introduction but, it is, nonetheless problematic. Realism, as the current section shall try to elucidate, is based on a number of assumptions which, ironically, are not consistently realistic in the sense that they hold equally true for all times and places. Peter J. Kazenstein implies as much in "Domestic Structures and Strategies of Foreign Economic Policy," wherein he maintains that the globalization framework seems somewhat at odds with the hypothesis of states consistently acting for expansion and preservation of their "power," not to mention for the protection of their national interests (891-893). While this section of the paper will not dispute that states are the primary actors, either within the domestic or international arena, or that state actions are primarily directed by concern over national security and power status, it will argue that within a globalized world the very concept of national security, interest and power has expanded to include economic interests. That does not mean to imply that the realist perspective overlooked the economic component of power and national interest but, that it underplayed its importance. Cohn admits this when he writes that "realists have developed their theories by drawing mainly on politics and history rather than economics; ... [and that] the realists' emphasis on power has most often directed their attention to strategic-security issues rather than to economic issues" (59). Bearing this specific weakness in mind, and pending a definition of the realist perspective, this section shall try to illustrate that while certain aspects of the realist perspective are no longer very realistic, given the framework of globalization, this particular perspective still contains a number of principle beliefs which provide the student with greater insight into international political economy, or IPE."
| |
|
Liberalism: Past and Present, 2004.
Examines a 1764 pamphlet on the ideas of liberalism and shows how these ideas differ from the concept of liberalism today.
2,800 words (approx. 11.2 pages), 1 source, APA, $ 83.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
Liberalism has always encompassed the basic premise that individuals are fundamentally free. The political concept of liberalism has gone through some changes over the centuries, but the philosophical concept of liberalism has remained mostly unaltered. The paper shows that the ways in which liberal ideas were put into practice during the infancy of American civilization are illustrated through a widely acclaimed pamphlet written by Governor Stephen Hopkins and published by William Goddard, entitled ?The Rights of Colonies Examined.? This pamphlet was put into publication on December 22, 1764, and consecutive editions ran in 1765 and 1766. The paper explains that the pamphlet was written in response to the imposed Revenue Act of 1764, as well as a proposed Stamp Act, which would have only caused undue economic burdens on the American colonies. The paper shows, therefore, that the liberalism expressed at this point of history is different from contemporary liberalism, both politically and practically.
From the Paper
"The pamphlet argued that the equal privileges and rights held by those in America are held as ?inherent indefeasible rights?, and as free-born subjects, are naturally entitled to rights outlined in the British Constitution. However, the author suggested that the liberty situation among the American colonies seems to be changing for the worst. It was explained how the British ministry, for some unknown reason, had passed an act that limited and hindered trade of the American colonies, and also resolved that taxes, including a duty on stamps, was necessary. This was seen as undermining the principles of liberty the colonies, as well as the British constitution, were built upon."
| |
|
Liberalism: Great or Horrible, 2006.
A critique on liberalism based on the teachings of religion and the doctrines of Karl Marx.
2,248 words (approx. 9.0 pages), 2 sources, APA, $ 69.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The paper states that liberalism is a subject on which people have varying views and one which some philosophers and interest groups support. The paper then continues and discusses how other thinkers and individuals find liberalism to be lacking. This is either because liberalism, in their opinion, is flawed or they simply find that liberalism does not meet their personal needs. The paper specifically discusses Karl Marx's critique on liberalism, explaining that it is based on his understanding of the position of the economically deprived. Moreover, the paper compares Marx's views on liberalism with those of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, as well as the views on liberalism that might be held by a religious person. The paper concludes that liberalism seems to be a good system of government for the present time, and while liberalism may not always be the best system of government, it seems be the best option for present day society.
From the Paper
" Marx believes that these fears move the wheels of society. This view varies from Hobbes, who believes that humans' fear and vulnerability is what makes all of us equal. Marx also firmly believes that in the modes of production there are many inequalities. Marx attests that inequalities are due to fact that the individual is kept un-free in capitalistic, money-driven societies. "This realm of natural necessity expands with his development, because his needs do too; but the productive forces to satisfy these expand at the same time". In this type of system Marx believes there is no need for humans to possess any kind of individuality, and that all creative forces are quashed. Marx again traces this back to the idea that capitalism has no need for the masses to possess any kind of individuality. Instead, he asserts that capitalism not only causes, but also encourages, the masses to be constantly producing. Marx gives an example of the concept of mass production; the example he offers is the assembly line. Marx also believes that the Capitalist's main goal is to take as much surplus value from labor as they possible can. Marx basically does not find liberalism to be a good system because he does not agree with the capitalistic system and he does not think that work defines human beings. He asserts that what one does to economically support him- or herself and family should not define the individual as a person, but the mere fact of being an individual human being should be what defines each member of society separately and uniquely. This is because Marx believes that individuals are not free and do not choose their jobs. This means that individuals are defined by not-choosing. Also, jobs are just a means to an economic end, and human creativity should instead be the end. In a capitalist government, the state enslaves the individual to his or her job and controls the person through it."
| |
|
American Liberalism, 2002.
Examines idea of Liberalism in American politics from 1776 to 1850 which stemmed from Federalist views and ultimately contributed partially to the Civil War.
650 words (approx. 2.6 pages), 2 sources, $ 26.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
Liberalism in America has both waxed and waned, but by the 1850's the idea of a large central government dictating the behavior of states and individuals was abhorrent to at least 50% of the states. When America began, while there was one voice for the creation of an independent nation, there were two distinct voices claiming legitimacy for the form which that new nation would take. The Republicans believed that the best form was an essentially toothless national government with very limited powers other than those of creating laws, forming the military, managing money and negotiating treaties. The Federalists believed that a strong central government with broad powers that would supercede states' rights was the proper course. Liberalism emerged from the Federalist view - the idea that the Federal Government could and should, provide for an individual-level of influence and benefit. Liberalism, then, was the politics of managing the lives of the citizens in the manner that the central government perceived would provide the greatest benefit. This concept has been part of the American political scene since then, in various forms, but while it was a movement in the first 75-years of the nation's history, a central distrust of large centralized governments stemming from the anti-English and anti-Monarchy sentiments. Liberalism was, in part, cause for the Civil War.
| |
|
The Gnome Liberation Front, 2006.
A discussion on whether the Gnome Liberation Front is a radical left-wing situationist or a right-wing liberationist parody.
1,479 words (approx. 5.9 pages), 9 sources, MLA, $ 48.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The paper examines the legitimacy of the Gnome Liberation Front (GLF) as a political party. The writer discusses how the tone of the website is a combined parody of political correctness rhetoric, speaking of oppressed minorities such as the short gnomes, and fringe liberation front rhetoric about liberating these tiny ceramic people. The writer further compares the GLF to the movie "Fight Club" with an attitude of creating an "in-joke" amongst a group of members, for private self-glorification. The writer concludes that the GLF uses situationist-style techniques and methods to accomplish what are, to the eyes of the world, uncertain goals.
From the Paper
"Even the GLF website domain of 'internet-trash' suggests a parody. Although there is photographic evidence of 'real' rescue activities of garden gnomes, this could just as easily take the form of a montage of staged shots. The blatantly false "Gnomes on the Roam" section, which superimposes gnome shots upon real-world images, seems to confirm this idea and increases the reader's suspicions that this is not a real organization of any serious intent. However, the 2000 news story "Garden Gnome Liberation Front strikes Paris show" by the respectable news organization CNN ultimately belies the web-surfer's initial suspicions."
| |
|
1960s Liberalism, 2007.
A discussion on liberalism in the 1960s, focusing on the Civil Rights Movement.
2,100 words (approx. 8.4 pages), 4 sources, APA, $ 65.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The paper examines how modern liberalism reached a peak in the 1960s United States, when the Great Society program, initiated by President Johnson, resulted in a number of significant reforms. The paper discusses these reforms, particularly in the areas of civil rights and social welfare. The paper analyzes how, since the mid-1970s, however, there has been a definitive move away from liberalism and towards conservatism in the American society. The essay discusses reasons for this change.
Outline:
Introduction
The Philosophy of the 1960s' Liberalism & its Objectives
Accomplishments of 1960s Liberalism
Reasons for the Conservative Backlash
Conclusion
References
From the Paper
"In the recent history of the United States, liberalism had its heyday in the 1960s when the Civil Rights Movement and feelings against social injustice in the American society culminated in the 'Great Society' program of LBJ that set the ambitious goals of eliminating poverty and racial injustice by launching major initiatives in the areas of education, health, urban problems, transportation, consumer protection, and the environment. Other spin-offs of the liberal era were the flowering of movement for Women's Liberation and the gay rights. From the mid-seventies onward, however, liberalism has gradually been overshadowed by a growing conservative tide in the US society to an extent that many observers have pronounced it 'dead and buried.'"
|
|
|
