Neo-Conservatives as Social Darwinists

During the past few years, a group of well-known, highly effective writers, academicians, and politicians have become exponents of a philosophical position known as neo-conservatism. This group has been defined by Peter Steinfels, himself a reformed neo-conservative, as . . ex-liberals who recoiled from the turmoil of the [1960s and] who worry about the decline of traditional authority, the excess of democracy, and the failure of nerve in foreign affairs.' These individuals, according to Steinfels, have moved toward the political right of the spectrum. One may perceive that the two main political parties in the United States of America are operating from separate and distinct political/philosophical concepts. Traditionally, we have viewed these parties as two parallel, vertical lines, with each line representing one or the other major party, each having its own philosophical assumptions, beliefs, and methods of operation regarding specific issues. Sometimes these lines touch, e.g., when in agreement on issues of national concern. Usually, though, they are far apart on most issues. However, we should not assume that a person who is politically conservative is also conservative on social issues, or vice versa. Simply belonging to the Democratic Party, for example, does not necessarily mean that one is liberal in all of one's beliefs.2 The customary way of thinking ignores significant differences

Political science · Sociology · Pragmatism in Philosophy and Education · Psychology · Social Psychology

• Black Representation in Urban School Districts

  Joseph Stewart, Robert E England et al.•The Western Political Quarterly•1989

  Add to list