以下、学生のレポート（２）です。「シラバス」で説明したように、アメリカの保守主義の台頭を歴史的な観点から検討し、それがアメリカのリベラリズムとどう関係しながら、現代に至っているのかが授業のテーマでした。まずヨーロッパの啓蒙時代のロックの「自然権」やルソーの人権思想がアメリカの建国の理念にどのような影響を及ぼしたのかを検討。また、建国当時の”古典的リベラリズム”が、大恐慌後のニューディール・リベラリズムにどのようにして取って代わられたのか、さらに戦後の福祉国家論と政府の肥大化、冷戦がアメリカの戦後の保守主義運動にどのような影響を与えたのかを検討しました。アメリカの保守主義は、南部のアグラリアンと自由至上主義のリバタリアン、さらに伝統主義者の３つの流れがありました。それが一体化しながら、６０年代に保守主義思想の枠組みができあがり、やがて政治の世界でレーガン政権の保守主義革命に結びついて行く過程を７０年代のリベラルの過剰の時代の流れの中で検討。さらにネオコンの発生から、イラク戦争に至る思想的、政治的な分析を行ないました。

（３）
Yukiko Nemoto (根本由紀子)
課題の本「THE FUTURE OF FREEDOM –Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad –」

Introduction – The Democratic Age –
The author asserts that we live in a democratic age. Today, 119 countries, 62 percent of all of countries in the world, have a democracy, compared not a single democratic country in 1900. The democratization, the shift of power downward, goes on not only in politics but also in economic and culture because of the technological revolution, growing middle class wealth, the collapse of alternative system and ideologies that organized society, and America.

During 1990s, technology and information democratized as well and that made central control impossible and dissent easy. This also made it possible to get anything, including things like mass destruction weapons and nuclear technology for most anybody, which the author calls democratization of violence. This means that states do not have a monopoly over use of force anymore. As the result, the states’ authority has been weakened and the order between states and citizens has changed. Also, capital markets, private businesses, local governments and nongovernmental organizations have been gathering forces and undermining the authority of states. Thus, this age can be characterized by a tension between the forces that promote the democratization of authority and the state. However, since we assume that democracy never causes problems, we do not discuss these transformations that is at the center of political, economic, and social lives.

The people in the West recognize democracy as a “liberal democracy” which is a political system marked not only by free and fair elections but also by the rule of law, a separation of powers, and the protection of basic liberties of speech, assembly, religion, and property. However, these freedoms, “constitutional liberalism”, have essentially nothing to do with democracy and the two have not always been concomitant. Today, democracy is blooming but liberty is not. Some countries have democracy but it is “illiberal democracy,” which is the regimes are instituted by elections but they do not limit their power and strip basic rights of their citizens. Also, in newly democratized countries, democracy became sham democracy and it produces disenchantment, disarray, violence and new forms of tyranny. Many developing countries face difficulty to create a stable, genuinely democratic society.

Before moving to the main topic, at first he made the definition of political democracy clear. From its Greek root, democracy means the rule of people and in the modern world, it is used as a process of selecting government and the essence of democracy is open, free and fair election. Without it, even though the government is good, you cannot call the system democracy. Constitutional liberalism advanced in Western Europe and the United States as a defense of an individual’s right to life and property and the freedoms of religion and speech, thus, it agues that people have certain natural or inalienable rights and that governments must accept a basic law, limiting its own powers, to secure them. Thus, the characteristic of their governments is not mass plebiscite (democracy), but impartial judge (constitutional liberalism).
Although America is labeled as a symbol of democracy, its government actually has many undemocratic traits.

For instance, the Supreme Court is headed by unelected men and women for life tenure, the senate is an unrepresentative upper house, and protections accorded to minority parties as opposed to the power of majority parties. However, these undemocratic traits are wearing thin. The U.S. Congress used to function in a hierarchical and closed manner, at some distance from public pressures, however; now, it is a transparent body, and open to views and pressures. Furthermore, the increasing influence of public polls has strengthened the democratic values of the U.S. With public polls, the people’s demands have surfaced faster for politicians to carry them out.

However, as America’s democracy continues to age, people are calling for more freedom and unrestrained democracy. However, as the world continues to evolve, new problems and conflicts erupt that disturb the delicacy of the democratic framework. Problems such as terrorism and immigration need to be dealt in the coming 21st century. Thus, this unchecked liberalism is a danger. The book is about creating a democratic framework without letting the dangers of liberalism loose.

Chapter 1 – A Brief History of Human Liberty –
The author saw the first important source of liberty in the rise of the Christian Church in the West and he emphasized that liberty came to the West first and led to democracy. He compared liberty in the modern world with one in ancient Greece and showed that while the former implied certain basic human rights, the latter meant the universal suffrage (although the electorate was only male citizen). He asserted that the birthplace of liberty was not Greece but Roman since the Romans stressed the different side of freedom that all citizens were to be treated equally under the law.

The Roman Republic, with the separation of the three branches of government, election of officials to limited terms, and stress on the equity under the law, has been thought as a ideal government and has influenced the American and Western law. Most of the world’s laws of contract, property, liability, defamation, inheritance, and estate and rules of procedure and evidence are only different forms of Roman ideas.

The author lists a series of power struggles such as between church and state, lord and king, Protestant and Catholic, business and the state, and argues that these struggles gained more individual liberty.　 The Catholic Church, which was the first major institution separated from the authority in history, and the aristocracy, who had power, money and legitimacy in Europe provided the basic materials of freedom by challenging the authority. In the Reformation in the early 16th century, Protestants promoted liberty by rejecting the authority of the papacy and insisting the right of minority sects in a community. In 18th century, however, the states in Europe strengthened due to the technological shifts, heightened military competition, the uplift of nationalism, and the competence to centralize tax collection, and that led the enlightened absolutism which made liberty regress. England, however, did not become the enlightened absolution because, as Montesquieu pointed out, they had separation of powers and that secured civil liberties and tolerated for nonconformity.

But then, capitalism started spreading. As the capitalism expanded, bourgeoisie gained more power and status and they encouraged free trade, free markets, individual rights including property rights, and freedom of religion. The role of bourgeoisie was essential because it caused a virtuous circle which advanced the cause of liberty. The history above shows that there is a certain European pattern: capitalism and the rule of law first, and then democracy.

Chapter 2 – The Twisted Path –
In 1880s and 1890s, suffrage was broadened and almost every adult male were franchised. It changed the countries’ political and social tendency since the newly empowered people such as workers and peasants felt dawn to ideology of socialists or ultra-nationalists. As the democracy expanded the moderate, liberal agenda of individual rights, free market economics, constitutionalism decayed before the appeal of communism, religion and nationalism. Because of the struggle between liberalism and populist authoritarianism, for much of Europe, the path to liberal democracy was twisted and bloody through social revolution, fascism and war.

The author noted the difference between Germany, which caused Nazism, and England, which persisted with liberalism at the time, and found that one of the reasons of the difference was from their social structures. While England had the economic and political independence of its bourgeoisie, Germany had a strong bureaucratic tradition which made German entrepreneurs depend on the state. Although Germany was industrialized, it still had an agrarian state in the new bourgeois society. As for France, they embraced democracy without a developed tradition of constitutional liberalism so they placed the state above society, democracy above constitutionalism, and equality above liberty.

Thus they are hardly liberal. The author emphasized the importance of the wealth of nation to maintain successful democracy. He compared per capita GDP among the countries and proved the relationship between democracy’s political success and economic success. However, he remarked, that there are exceptions; oil-rich states. For liberal democracy, the best economic growth is capitalist growth since capitalism brings about an entrepreneurial bourgeoisie that unavoidably breaks down the old aristocratic order and establishes liberty. However, wealth in natural resources obstructs both political modernization and economic growth. In the oil-rich countries, since the government can gain money from the natural resources, it is not necessary for them to make the society rich and tax that wealth of citizens for their finances. This means the government does not make much effort to enrich its society and also does not have the reciprocal bargain between taxation and representation which gives the legitimacy of government.

Capitalist growth is the best way to overthrow the old feudal order and create an effective and limited state. Thus, the author asserted that economic reform, which requires legal reform and other relaxation of power, should come first, and then political reform should be done for long-term democracy.

Chapter 3 – Illiberal Democracy –
After the fall of communism in 1991, the regimes like Russia’s that combine elections and authoritarianism, illiberal democracies, started governing countries around the world. The author compared Russia with China which both are not liberal democracies. Although China still remains a closed society which the Communist Party runs, they have reformed its economy quickly and slowly along with its legal and administration system. Conversely, Russia moved to political reform rapidly and also economic reform which, however, did not work much.

Also, Russia has plenty of natural resources and thus they do not try to create rules and policies to further its economic growth. Since the economic development is crucial for the liberal democracy, Russia seems to be going the wrong direction. The author also presented the reasons of illiberal democracy in Russia in the regimes of Yeltsin and Putin. Firstly, Yeltsin did not found political parties, which are the mechanism people express, reconcile and institutionalize their moral and political values. Without parties, however, politics becomes a game for individuals, interest groups, and strongmen.

As for Putin, he has disempowered regional governments, threatened the media, and controlled oligarchs. These are a problem for Russia’s liberal democracy as there is no one left to check the government. However, Russia’s path is familiar in other countries. During the last two decades, Africa, parts of Asia and Latin America have seen dictatorships with little or no constitutional liberalism or capitalist aimed democracy. Although these countries opened up their politics and allowed greater liberty, the mixture of democracy and authoritarianism sometimes led the country to dictatorships again because elections eventually just legitimized the current authority. Illiberal democracy does not seem to be an effective path to liberal democracy from its history’s examples.

In 18th and 19th century, liberals thought democracy as a force that could impair liberty since while constitutional liberalism is about the limitation of power; democracy is about its accumulation and use. Over the past decade, elected governments had the tendency to believe they had absolute power and violated the powers and rights of other elements in the society such as other braches of the national government, and regional and local authorities as well as private businesses. This usurpation spread particularly in Latin America and the former Soviet Union, probably because they had a presidential system. This system likely produces leaders who believe that they totally represent all the people. However, even in a parliamentary system where power is shared with a prime minister, states without well-developed alternate centers of power such as strong legislatures, courts, political parties, regional governments, and also independent universities and media, can become very undemocratic.

A democratic system is also abused by the majority of the community. This happens especially in developing countries since they do not have protections for individual and minority rights which exist in the West. As society opens up and politicians struggle for power, they often appeal to the public by emphasizing the group solidarity of ethnicity or religions. This sometimes causes ethnic and religious conflicts or wars. That is, in societies without strong traditions of multiethnic groups or assimilation, nor a background of constitutional liberalism, the introduction of democracy stirs up hyper-nationalism, ethnic conflict and even war.

Chapter 4 – The Islamic Exception –
The Arab world today is trapped between autocratic states and illiberal societies and its dynamic has produced a political tendency filled with religious extremism and violence. The Arab world has problems such as terrorism, economic paralysis, social stagnation as well as intellectual failure. The author looked for the causes of these problems partly in their religion, Islam, but mostly in the Middle East itself. Since Islam does not have any religious establishments such as popes or bishops, which can declare by fiat if which interpretation is right, anyone in Islam can opposite to the rulers like Bin Laden did.

But this is not enough explanation for why these problems occur now and only in Middle East. The author asserted that the real problem lies not in the Muslim world but in the Middle East, and it is caused because the Arab World stayed stuck in primary political and social orders while the West progressed and parts of non- Western countries also began modernizing. One of the causes of economical and social stagnation in the Middle East is that they are an old-rich country and also receive much foreign aid. As mentioned above, easy money delays economic and political modernization because the government does not need to tax its citizens and thus does not need to provide something in the form of accountability, transparency, and representation in return, either. Another bad side of wealth by natural resources is that it leads to a repressive government since they have enough money to have the police and the army. Another cause of the stagnation is their pride as an Arabian and fall.

The Arab countries tried ideology of military republicanism, state socialism, and Arab nationalism but none of them worked. That made people be disillusioned with the West instead of their leaders. The compound of fascination and repulsion with the West and modernity has totally confused the Arab world. Especially, the young men who are educated and came to cities feel the contradiction between the modern life and the tradition. In these countries, the number of the youth has been explosively and temporarily increased today. As the history shows that is a youth bulge tends to cause revolution, globalization with frustration and confusion caused religious revival in the form of fundamentalism.

The reason why the dissent fundamentalist call evoked people’s sympathy was because it invited men to participate in the way of governance. The combination of religion, which emphasizes moral absolution, and politics, which can be hold by compromise, caused a merciless winner-take-all attitude toward political life. The author saw the main cause of the rise of Islamic fundamentalism is complete failure of political institutions in Arab world since when they lose their legitimacy and fail to provide basic services; other organizations like fundamentalists can step into the void. This movement has spread in other Islam countries outside of the Middle East due to the competition between Iran (12 Imam of Shiah) and Saudi Arabia (Wahhabi of Sunni) in the globalization of radical Islam.

The author presented the solution to this problem that is the trial to include the fundamentalists in the governmental system. Also, he stated that the key to change this situation is to reform politics and economics first not religion because after the societies are modernized, religion has to follow that anyway and that is easier for religion to adapt the modernization.

The author’s solutions to the overall problems and dysfunction in the Arab world are firstly, they should set their present goal in establishment of constitutional liberalism and revival of constitutionalism not in democracy. Elections are important but constitutional liberalism and constitutionalism are more essential because constitutional liberalism secures human autonomy and dignity and constitutionalism prevents the accumulation of power by the system of checks and balances. Secondly, they should make an effort to realize peace between the Israel and Palestine to lose the tension between the Arab world and the West. Finally, they should improve economic and politics since capitalism helps to create a limited, accountable state, and realizes a genuine rule of law (capitalism needs contracts), openness to the world, access to information, and development of a business class.

As the path to the economic reform, the author suggested them to copy the practice in Chad which entrusted its natural resource revenues by an independent oversight committee made up of some of its leading citizens. Thus, this system in Chad guaranteed that the government money would be used for health, education, infrastructure, and other benefits for its citizens.

Finally, the author talks about the importance of constitutionalism and how it is necessary to a healthy democratic state. Constitutions are meant to tame the passions of the public, secure power for minorities, thus increasing the chance of democratic success. However, with its rich variety of unelected bodies, indirect voting, and checks and balances, constitutions in the developed world have been regarded with suspicion. Thus, the author emphasizes that key to a maturing genuine democracy is blending liberalism and democracy together. Understanding this system is central to the development of good government throughout the world.

Chapter 5 – Too Much of Good Thing –
In the United States, although they have succeeded economically, they are unsatisfied with their society, especially with their political system. They regard popularity and openness as the measure to value legitimacy and democratic politics. As a result, the structure of the society became more democratic but less liberal. Also, politicians started doing nothing but listening to the American people and that caused their unfaith in their democracy.

For the founders of the U.S, their ideal form of the political system was republic, not democracy (direct democracy). They regarded direct democracy as turbulent, illiberal and unstable. They pursued representative, republican democracy because they believed that it provided the right balance of popular control and deliberative decision-making. However, the civil right movement through Vietnam War, Watergate and urban violence in the late 1960s and early 1970s democratized Congress and the American political system. This reform produced the rule by minorities such as lobbyists and special interest groups. They have existed for most of American history, but since the money through effective lobbying has increased excessively as the government became larger, and also Congress can now easily be monitored and influenced, lobbyists has gained much power.

This caused a disappointing situation for both conservatives and liberals. For conservatives, this means that aim of reducing federal expenses is difficult to come true. For liberals, this means it became nearly impossible to spend money on new problems and opportunities for education, food stamps and new infrastructure. Also, this makes it impossible for the government to try new programs since even if it fails, the errors will be fixed. The government cannot shut down the programs anymore because of the power and pressure of interest groups. This makes people think that not the government but the organizations such as nongovernmental organizations, think tanks, the press or even private companies can solve the problems effectively.

The primary institution that can mediate between the interest groups and politicians is the political party. The more general interests of the party can be discussed and negotiated within the party. Actually for more than two centuries, parties worked well for leading public passions and interests into a workable system of democratic politics. The author pointed out that political parties, however, do not really exist in the U.S. anymore. Since over the last decades, the parties have become so open and decentralized that nobody controls them, the parties became just reflections of their candidates. This new party is dominated by Washington professionals such as activists, ideologues, fundraisers, and pollsters because politicians are influenced more by their active primary electorate than the mainstream ideas of parties. Another factor to weaken the parties’ function is campaign finance reform. Since the reform limit the contribution for candidates from parties, candidate always had to worry about collecting money and be pressured by fundraisers.

Another form of democratization of politics is referendum. A surge of direct democracy occurred in the early 1900s because politics were corrupt. By the 1920s most states had established laws to allow for some form of direct democracy but as politics was purified, the its importance and necessity declined. However, after California’s proposition 13, which was the referendum to cut the tax down, passed in 1978, referendum started drawing people’s attention again and became popular again. Direct democracy, however, does not work because the commotion of ever-increasing order from the people just causes a disorder of laws due to the lack of debate, deliberation, and compromise that characterize legislation. The traditional method of law-making by legislature required debate and deliberation to take account the opposite’s view and making compromises so that the opponents accept its legitimacy. Also, since public policies came to be influenced by big business, referendum became the place only the rich individuals and interest groups play. This resulted in increase of power of well-organized and well-funded interested groups in politics.

Although old parties had a philosophical tradition and was visible and accountable, groups who run American politics such as consultants, lobbyists, fund-raisers, and pollsters are unaccountable, unresponsive and often unconcerned with any larger public interest because they do not need to care about their reputation, and also there is no one who can monitor them.

Chapter 6 – The Death of Authority –
The democratic current has penetrated into American society through business, law, medicine, culture and even religion. This opened up American industries and professions and broke down old strictures of power and control, deprived power from the class of elites who ran these institutions, even changed the idea of elites and empowered individuals.

The author gave an example of the democratization of capitalism first. From the 1970s, economics, technology and government policy all furthered deregulating, decentralizing and democratizing the economy. People now can borrow money with credit cards while only elites who had credit could do forty years ago. By 2000, over half of Americans owned equities which were thought for only rich people before. Another example of democratization is religion. Over the last thirty years the most essential transform in American religion has been the dispersion of power from the orthodox churches such as Episcopalians, Methodists and Presbyterians to broad, evangelical groups.

Although fundamentalism appeared in the early 20th century to maintain scriptural purity against those who wanted to accept individuals to interpret the Bible more liberally, the Evangelical Christianity made itself populist and democratic in order to survive. While in the tradition style, local priest was people’s moral guide, in the Evangelical style, moral guidance is provided through a television show. Also, some missionary of Evangelicalism started mimicking mainstream culture and values to attract a mass audience and its doctrine became more tolerant. They also started going into politics. They has opposed against abortion gays and evolution, which bind the vast group together. The society, however, became more tolerant toward these issues and they had to change the enemy which is Islam this time. This movement led to the decentralization and democratization of American Christianity and the rise of “spiritual seekers” who believe that religion is totally personal matter with no requirements or orders, and that each person has to build his own faith. This example of Evangelical shows that rapid and broad fall of all religious authority in the U.S.

The author, then take notice of the relationship between democratization and marketization. The old cultural authority whose job was to decide what was good in the sense of valuable but now the authority decide what is good in terms of popular. Business in art and literature now provides not precious things but what will become popular. Since people today exist and use their power through as consumers, marketization has become partner of democratization.

As the society has been democratized, the role of elites in the U.S. has changed. By thirty years ago, professionals in the world of journalism, publishing, law, accounting, and medicine regarded their job as partly for profits and partly for public service. In the history, institutions such as museums, opera company and libraries were founded not by the state but by the groups of civic-minded individuals. American aristocrats regarded public service as an essential part of their lives. However, now their role has been declined because of the market increasing competition and expansion of the government, and people believe it is appropriate that the government do the public actions. Law now has been democratized and commercialized but law was a way to make respectable and decorous living before not to get rich.

Similarly, the medical profession was doing their job for nothing but the best medical reasons before but now doctor is just another business owner who keep trying to cut the cost down and worrying about lawsuits in the competitive atmosphere. This change results from the intervention to the healthcare industry of the government. Accounting also became more open and competitive business because the Federal Trade Commission and the American Institution of Certified Public Accountants permit accountants to charge contingent fees. This new system is more democratic and widens the possibilities of people who had money, brains, or celebrity; however, the virtue, which the old elites have such as social responsibility and certain values, was gone.Today, people expect little to the elites and they are not required much responsibility for the society.

Conclusion – The Way Out –
The 20th century was characterized by two tendencies; the regulation of capitalism and the deregulation of democracy. The economy before World War I was constituted of laissez-faire, hyperinflation, and the Great Depression, but after these events happened, the government started intervening in economics, society and politics to solve the problems. Regulations were established every time the society faced the crisis, and that produced a new bureaucracy.

The characteristics of politics in the 20th century are extension of the suffrage, getting rid of indirect elections, degrading the strength of elites, and empowering more people in more ways. Democracy became a solution for everything. However, the deregulation of democracy has produced an awkward system, which is unable to govern or command the respect of people. The author insisted that it is necessary for betterment of this situation to make the government insulate from the intense public pressures. He proved that the organizations function well if they are insulated from pressure of democracy by listing organizations such as the Supreme Court, the Federal Reserve System, EU and WTO. Opening up politics to the people means in practice opening it to organized political interest groups who represent small minorities.

Since special interests are definitely a form of free speech, it is nearly impossible to ban them. However, there is hope in the structure of American government itself. Delegated democracy (Republic) can produce better government since it is exercised by people who are interested and experienced in public affairs and still accountable to the people. Thus, what is needed in the U.S. now is not more democracy but less to make the government work. Since the modern democracies have to deal with terrorism, globalization, and an aging society, they have to make their system function better than they currently do. It is necessary for achieving that to make democratic decision-making effective, uniting constitutional liberalism into the practice of democracy, re-establishing broken political institutions and civic associations.

Also this requires that people with huge power in American society have not only legal but also moral responsibilities, leadership, ability to set standards. It is important to protect democracy from being discredited.

Reaction to The Book
I thought liberty and democracy were inseparable and if a country is democratized, that would inevitably expand the people’s right and liberty. However, as the author pointed out, oppressive dictatorship can be created by democracy and the minorities can be oppressed in the democratic structure. As he said in the book, I think we have tendency to believe democracy is a good thing blindly but maybe we need to see democracy critically so that we can make it better one.

I knew that the growth of bourgeoisie brought more liberty in the European history but I think it is interesting that this model can adapt to the modern society, that is, the countries that reformed economic faster than political system actually prosper more than those who did the reverse at the present time. But from this viewpoint, I feel like it is nearly impossible for counties in Africa have a good democracy because I wonder if they can be as rich as the some certain level the author showed for remaining a successful democracy. Although this European model can be useful for the countries who want more democratic society, I think this also imply it would be very difficult for African countries to have a stable society with democracy and liberalism.

The relationships between natural resources and tax and between tax and accountability are also interesting. The income from natural resources is one of the elements that prevent society from becoming democratic. In the near future, natural resources will be used up soon and so I wonder if this could lead the countries with depleting natural resources to become a more liberal and democratic country because the government would have to find another way to enrich the country. If this would mean gaining revenue from taxation with representation, than there is potential for the growth of a successful democracy in these states.

The author suggested that the solution for the problem of the fundamentalists in Islam is to join them in the government system. However, since I do not think that the fundamentalists will compromise with other ideas due to their religious beliefs, I do not think his idea will work. Thus, I think they should govern with the separation of politics and religion. I think the best solution is that the scholars in Islam study more how to make their society better, not try to prove how their traditional studies are wonderful. They should also spread their results of their study to the public so that people can access this information in order to think with a wider perspective.

The author asserted that the cause of interest groups within government is to achieve direct democracy. However, in Japan, even though we have few chances to vote directory, these interest groups run the politics and so I think it is inevitable that they influence the government. I think it is somewhat true that without debate and compromise, it would be difficult to adjust the policies and to get its legitimacy from the opposing forces. But direct votes became popular because people were unsatisfied with the government and felt their thoughts and opinions were not represented. It is ironic that the organizations insulated from public pressure still function well. However, I don’t think insulation of public pressure toward the government is the right answer to improve the government.

Reaction to The Lectures
The concept of the classical liberalism was born to protect individual rights of property and life from the absolutism and Church in Europe in 16th century. The founders of the U.S. succeeded to the idea and established the country as a democratic and liberal one. Taking this view, economy was also free and that furthered capitalism. However, as the economy developed, laissez-faire caused the differential between the rich and the poor. After the World War 1 and the Great Depression, Roosevelt took the New Deal and the government started intervening the market, regulating the industries and promoting the welfare on the basis of Keynes’s economic theory. Since then, the government has become bigger and bigger and centralized administrative power.

In 1950s and 1960s, the government took mixed economy, which is combined free market and plans and aimed to live together with communism. Also, around this time, the Populists started gaining popularity and power, and it eventually introduced graduated income tax. The people who took this trend as violation of individual freedom and rights was Conservatives which is fusion of libertarian and traditionalist by the anti-communism ideology. The differences between Liberals and Conservatives can be explained economically, politically and ethnically. While Liberals take Keynes’s economic theory and insist the necessity of intervention of the government to the market, Conservatives take the supply side economics and assert the essential of deregulation and reduction of taxes.

Politically, Liberals try to improve the society on the basis of abstract principles and arbitrary and general doctrine but for Conservatives, the change should be made by following the manners, the customs, the laws and traditions of people (David Gelernter, 21). As for the foreign policy, Liberals attach great importance to the international cooperation but Conservatives tend to advocate the Monrroe Doctrine (isolationist policy) and nationalism and do not trust international organization such as the UN. As to the values they have, actually there are three different values because there are two different values in the Conservative. For Liberals, human is reasonable and rational being because it concepts was born in the Enlightenment which regarded human’s reason in the first place. In opposition to that, traditionalists think human as a sinful being and that the source of ethics is from the Bible and thus God. For libertarians, the measure to distinguish what is right or wrong is the market. In practice, the Reagan administration and both Bush administrations adopt policies on the basis of the above Conservatives principles to some extent; however, they just made their government bigger and also increased the deficit.

I do not know whether the Conservative idea that government intervention in the market can make it inefficient is right or if Liberalist idea that intervention is needed to function the market is right. However, the reason that the New Deal was instituted was because there were poor people who required the government to protect them from being exploited from the bourgeoisie.

Thus, if the government takes laisse-faire again in the future, I think this sort of exploitation can happen again. Although I do not agree with socialism, I believe that the poor should be guaranteed their minimum welfare as a protection for their right of life.

As for the foreign policies, I cannot agree with the Conservative’s nationalism and isolationist policies. First, I think too much nationalism might cause dictatorship, which happened in Japan and Germany during the WW2, and that could deprive the basic rights of people such as freedom of speech and assemblies. Also, I do not agree with the attack on Iraq, which neo conservatives have supported for a long time, since I do not think it can eradicate the terrorists. Maybe they can bring democracy to Iraq but the society can be genuinely democratic when the common people try to create their own democratic structure that is catered to their specific culture and customs. Thus I think outside intervention and force would only prevent and hinder the natural evolution of democracy from taking place in Iraq. I think real democracy can occur only when the society is democratized from the bottom not from the top.

As for ethics, I basically agree with the liberal position. Abortion and gay rights are delicate to discuss and the judgments whether what is good or bad depends on the person’s value. But personally I think even if the government makes abortion illegal, I think many people would still have an abortion on the side, and I think this would be dangerous for women’s body and could strain women more than men. I do not think abortion is right and I believe nobody does. And I think the most important thing about abortion is not whether to make it illegal or not but to spread sex education and to try to decrease people who have to face the difficult decision-making. Concerning gay rights, I believe everyone has a right to live comfortably as being real him/herself and so I think the government should accept their marriage. There are many couples who do not have children by their choice, and marriage is not all about making kids, thus I think various forms of marriage should be accepted. In the lecture, drugs using was brought up to show the difference between traditionalist’s values and libertarian’s ones.

While traditionalists think it is no way to accept drug using, libertarians think people should leave the issue to the market and the market will decide. I am agree with the traditionalists on this issue because drug addictiveness is not something human’s reason can control and also because I believe that the society has responsibility to protects children and the youth from bad things to destroy them such as drugs. Thus, I think drug should be still illegal.

As a whole, I think their policies are built on their ideology and belief toward the relationship between the government and people as compared with the way of making policies in Japan. In Japan, it almost does not matter if which party comes to power because they are opportunism and decide thing only for the improvement of economics. From that point, I think it is good that the two parties compete each other and try to realize the better society with their ideology and belief in a long term. But at the same time, this causes the gap between liberals and conservatives in the society, which was proved after the presidential election in 2004. Since the logic that conservatives are building is very strong and the trend in the world is becoming more and more conservative, I think liberals need to build the logic to support their ideas so that through the debate, the good and balanced government will develop.

以上で終わりです。是非、感想をお聞かせください。