Pern you actually raise a very good point, as does the esteemed Mr Zhukov, nonetheless, I feel honour bound to make good on my word and post. . .
In order to keep the waters clear, terms must first be stated. Modern Liberalism is a child of the Enlightenment period and birthed both the ideals which inspired American and French Revolutions. To be simplistically concise, its tenants are twofold: Equality before the law as well as the protection of person and property rights against arbitrary abuse of the government. It's focus is on the rights of individuals, freedom of speech, religious expression et cetera. I use Edmund Burke's "Reflections on the Revolution in France" as the study for Liberalistic ideaology.
Totalitarianism, however, is more difficult to pin down in exact terms. See, the problem with political science is the lack of applicable paradigm. Due to this massive hindrance, it is not a true science at all, but that is an argument for another time. The definition of Totalitarianism I find agreeable has been better stated elsewhere, so I will post the link and cite the two qualities which I think best encompass it:
http://www.cf.ac.uk/hisar/people/kp/kpteach/total.htm :
1. Totalitarianism is characterized by a mass single-party, which establishes dictatorial control over the institutions of the state. It penetrates all aspects of life, and is able to absorb and deprive of autonomy all competing power centres (such as trade unions or religious groups). [E.g., the Communist party in the Soviet Union.]
6. Totalitarianism is characterised by a romantic and expansionist nationalism.
=-=-
Terms stated, I will choose the control group, and fortunately for all involved it is the country with which I am best aquainted; The good ol' US of A. I am going to make many generalities for the sake of bervity, but if any are contested, I will cheerfully defend them.
The American Republic was founded as a liberal republic, holding with the ideals of expounded by Burke and Locke. The Founding Fathers of that nation realized that individual rights and property rights were inseperable from one another. Private propery is defined as both the means of production as well as private possessions, adhering Liberalism tightly to Capitalism. Ideally in a democratic society “the government” functions for the people not out of self interest, yet the world they lived in, and we currently exist in, is anything but ideal. Nor is it truly democratic, therefore they endeavoured to create a government crippled by gridlock which would only handle the matters which individuals were ill-equipped to, as it illustrated in the Federalist Papers. Now, a successful capitalistic country will inherit elitist and aristocratic franchise. Power is strongest where it is consolodated, even in an economic setting, therefore Liberalism maintains elite power that enables that power to use government to behold private interest thus ensuring the survival of individual and property rights. I realize that is a difficult concept to wrap one's mind around, so if you, dear reader, do not completely understand take heart.
Now Socialism tendency is to expand democracy while Liberalism's focuses on blunting the tendency for democratic expansion by compromising with elitism. Liberalism's compromise leaves in place the recipe for totalitarianism while Socialism -in practice- embraces it willingly. I suppose you had thought I had something rather radical or new to offer up, but I don't. My ending might come as a little anticlimactic, and I apologise. My little theory, which I'm sure has already been stated by someone wiser than I, is fairly simply.
All political philosophies are in a constant state of flux, a never ending merry-go-round of contrasting reactionary, disillusioned ideologies. Liberalism, by its acceptance of elitism is a stepping stone of tyranny and totalitarianism. Our Forefathers knew this, and sought to stop the cycle before it could begin by having revolutions in government every four years. Tearing up the seeds of tyranny before they could sprout, but the complacency of the last forty years has made fertile soil, and the roots of Totalitarianism are sprouting even now.
Is there a a mass single-party, which establishes dictatorial control over the institutions of the state? No, not quite yet, but the potential for such is there. Is the government able to absorb and deprive the autonomy of all competing power centres? Assuredly. In America today we see the beginning of 'empire building,' which is a misnomer. What is in actuality taking place is not the growing of American power, but Liberal influence. Remember the sixth part of Totalitarianism's definition? Characterised by a romantic and expansionist nationalism?
Bing.
Once I wanted to enter into politics, but I take a perverse pleasure in watching freedom in its dying throws. I say reap the whirlwind, and I say it with a smile. It may not happen in my lifetime, but within a hundred years, America will make the Red Menace look like a training exercise, and irony of ironies, the people themselves have demaned it. They allowed it with their political apathy. They wished for it with their civic indifference. They begged for it with their nationalistic nihilism.
I apologise for any typoes, but I am almost as tired as I am bitter. I hope it was clear enough for everyone to understand. I'll respond to criticism as much as I am able.
edit: This applies to Miss Jeanette's prior statement tenatively, but no less aptly. Liberalism's emphasis on personal rights gives way to Totalitarianism's differential (sp?) preference of some rights over others. One's right to peace of mind versus the right of another individual to free speech. On a grand scale, that leads to the elevation of governmental influence and propaganda at the expense of the people's right to accountability from authority.
Linear Mode
