Modern Liberalism Ideology and Democratic Party (USA) Social Policy

Posted: December 29, 2016 by PaanLuel Wël in Junub Sudan, Opinion Articles, Opinion Writers, Reports

By Simon Deng Kuol Deng, New York, USA

democracy

Demo-cracy or Demo-crazy?

Abstract

December 29, 2016 (SSB) — A political party is a group of the individuals who choose one political ideology between several political ideologies such as modern liberalism, conservatism, socialism, etc. as their political party with which they might affiliate with because of programs or policy areas of political ideology. After a group of individuals has affiliated with political ideology to become their political party, then the individuals may either choose to remain with the name of political ideology or give political ideology a different name. If individuals, who are members changed a name of political ideology, then they might still remain to be identified by others or even by themselves with political ideology, which they have affiliated with even though they have given it a different name.

This paper emphasis to analysis modern liberalism and Democratic Party’s public social programs’ policy areas of how its leaders might protect the social security and Medicare, provide health care, stabilize the housing, provide education to everyone, support the military families and veterans, take care of American Disabilities, recognize faith-based organizations, protect the laws of the civil Rights, protect the laws of the voting Rights, protect a women’s right to choose, protect the freedom of individual to marry, ensure the public safety, justice, and crime prevention, promote social innovation and poverty eradication, and protect environment.

Introduction

Modern liberalism refers only to the United States as a political ideology that is typically linked with the Democratic Party. A political party is a group of the individuals who choose one political ideology between several political ideologies such as modern liberalism, conservatism, socialism, etc. as their political party with which they may affiliate with because of programs or policy areas of political ideology. After a group of individuals affiliated with political ideology to become their political party, then the individuals may either choose to remain with the name of political ideology or give political ideology a different name.

If individuals, who are members changed a name of political ideology, then they might still remain to be identified by others or even by themselves with political ideology, which they have affiliated with even though they have given it a different name. For example, a group of individuals in the United States of America has selected one political ideology, which is modern liberalism to be their political party. This group of individuals has made their decisions to name this political ideology, modern liberalism by giving it another name calls “Democratic Party” because of its concepts that are characteristically associated with the modern liberalism, but the individuals still remain to be identified as liberals by others or even by themselves.

The modern ideology and the Democratic Party’s public social policy areas of how its leaders might implement the social programs within the branches of a government of the United States are more likely to be different with other political ideologies or political parties. For instance, the Democratic Party and the Republican Party are more likely to have the differences on the public social policy areas of the social programs for improving the human welfare and to meet human’s needs.

Modern liberalism ideology is typically characterized as social liberalism as per its stances on combining concepts of civil liberty, equality, social justice, the mixed economy, etc. The Great Depression and the Second World War have provided social and political conditions conducive to a shift to the ideology of modern liberalism with the formation of a pro-modern working class and its organizations’ social policy (Mahon, 2008). From that time till currently, the ideology of modern liberalism focuses on positive freedoms of opportunity and personal development in which the state has a positive role in creating the conditions for all to develop their full potential public social policy (Mahon, 2008), even if this involved measures to counteract the impact of market forces.

The public social policy is the study of social services and the welfare state, but in general terms, it looks at the idea of social welfare, and its relationship to politics and society. The nature of policy issue is relevant not only to scientists and scholars of politics, or public administration but also for scholars and practitioners in institutions of different governments, businesses and non-for-profit organizations in general (Vargas, et al., 2011). The role of public social policy of modern liberalism is related to economic, social, political and (Vargas, et al., 2011) also it refers to guidelines and interventions for the creation of living conditions that are conducive to human welfare through providing education, health, housing, employment and food for all people.

For modern liberalism, social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both become the greatest benefit of the least advantaged, and attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity (Cutierrez, 2005). Liberals desire to construct a state which respects individuals’ need for an extensive private sphere in which to select their own goals but which also provides those individuals with the resources that enable them to pursue the goals which are known as the nation state’s social programs (P.220).

The modern liberalism public social policy is usually understood as state programs and services that address economic inequality resulting from risks to income and are bureaucratically administered to specified groups of citizens in specified circumstances (Amenta, et al., 2001). These understandings of public social policy have come with the challenges involves considering state programs other than the major social insurance programs and allied assistance programs that address modem societal risks to employment, income, and economic security.

Scholars have considered, among others, education, taxation policy, veterans’ benefits, housing policy, economic policy, and work programs (Amenta, et al., 2001). Other scholars argue that social relations in the modem capitalist and democratic world produce perils to income beyond the standard ones and programs to address them, such as drug policies, anti-discrimination policies, abortion policies, and imprisonment policies (Amenta, et al., 2001). The public social policy must also become a process that creates related social programs through the development and adoption of social legislation and guidelines for its implementation, provisions for program funding and administration, and implementation of programs from national levels to states and localities (P. 511).

The term “social,” as it relates to public policy, refers to the operation of society, its institutions and services, such as religious, educational, vocational, health, legal, and social welfare services, and to the interactions of people and society (Chilman, 1973). With this definition, the distinctions between economic and social policy become vague and virtually without meaning, as do those policies having to do with physical environment alone.

All these aspects of the social, economic, and physical environment, it is likely that we will become more aware of the need for a sophisticated plan, which is fully linked public policies to deal more effectively with these interactions (Chilman, 1973) of public social’s programs. However, in order to fund the public social’s programs, modern liberalism has considered its economy to be a mixed economy with strong regulatory oversight for the purpose of maximizing the provisions of the nation state and government’s public services and goods. The American modern liberalism ideology is characteristically associated with the concepts of the Democratic Party, which are aimed at rebuilding the middle-class security, strengthening the American community, protecting the rights and freedoms, and ensuring the safety and the quality of life.

This paper emphases to analysis modern liberalism ideology and Democratic Party’s public social programs’ policy areas of how its leaders might protect the social security and Medicare, provide health care, stabilize the housing, provide education to everyone, support the military families and veterans, take care of American Disabilities, recognize faith-based organizations, protect the laws of the civil Rights, protect the laws of the voting Rights, protect a women’s right to choose, protect the freedom of individual to marry, ensure the public safety, justice, and crime prevention, promote social innovation and poverty eradication, and protect environment.

Modern Liberalism Ideology

Modern Liberalism has defined as an ideology which demands government by consent, limited by the rule of law protecting individual rights’ where the exercise of all political responsibility is officially open to all minimally rational adults (Stears, 2001), by Louis Harts and followed by Rogers Smith. Whereas, Desmond King has suggested that a liberal political system is best understood as one which seeks to combine the protection and enhancement of individual freedom with a compromise liberals form of substantive equality (Stears, 2001). Modern liberalism is understood to be a novel exercise in refashioning an ideological tradition which is perceived to be in danger of ossification.

Also, modern liberalism remains understood to be well suited to societies characteristics by the fact of reasonable pluralism, for it makes possible the existence of an overlapping consensus of support for itself (Neal, 2000). The concepts of modern liberalism and overlapping consensus are associated with the theory of liberal democracy advanced by John Rawls in political modern liberalism (Neal, 2000), in which Britain and the United States are both tended to liberal democracies. For the last three decades, the study of political thoughts in Britain and the United States has been dominated by the search for an ideal liberal theory of justice.

Following the publication of John Rawls’s, theory of justice in 1971, many leading political theorists have spent the greater part of their academic effort offering increasingly subtle amendments to an account of the rightful distribution of social benefits and burdens (Stears, 2001), which have known as crucial programs of modern liberalism. Rawls’s articulation of the idea of modern liberalism is an attempt to resuscitate and reinvigorate the political ideology of modern liberalism itself (Neal, 2000). The attempt is necessitated by crisis generated by the widely-perceived inability, of that ideology in its hitherto conventional expressions to confront and take seriously the conditions and practical consequences of modern pluralism, whether ethical, religious or social.

Rawls has pointed out that modern liberalism is understood not as a political doctrine held by all those who affirm the comprehensive doctrine of liberalism, but rather as a political doctrine which may be affirmed by adherents of numerous reasonable comprehensive doctrines, who together comprise an overlapping consensus (P.226-7). He has stated that the essence of this way of presentation elaborated at length in modern liberalism, is the idea that liberalism is a freestanding political doctrine only, not a component part of some more general philosophy of life (Neal, 2000).

Nevertheless, such a project has not, of course, gone entirely unchallenged by a number of radical critics of Rawls and his liberal colleagues. Rawls was impartially spoken on comprehensive liberalism as it has suffered from the fault of constituting only another sectarian doctrine, but he has been criticized by many critics on the grounds that comprehensive liberalism is the partisan doctrine of class of knowledge expert and class of the owners of capital, and hence unsuited to serve as the common foundation of a political order in highly pluralistic societies (P226).

Hence, the last decades have witnessed a more thoroughgoing assault on the Rawlsian occupation than that offered by the libertarians and communitarians (Stears, 2001). That assault began as a number of theorists noted that the narrowness of focus has led to the simplification of complex ideas. Many theorists have threatened the philosophical foundations upon which modern liberalism itself stands by criticizing the original position, a hypothesis developed by the political philosopher John Rawls and which is itself a fundamental cornerstone in Rawls’s Theory of Justice.

Within eras of criticisms on the Rawls and other liberals, Rogers Smith’s book, titled Civic Ideals: Conflicting Visions of Citizenship in US History and Desmond King’s book, titled In the Name of Liberalism: Illiberal Social Policy in the United States and Britain have arrived and they have rescued liberals from critics who have been criticized their stances on modern liberalism social policy. Although neither of these superb books remained designed as a direct contribution to the literature of normative political theory, nevertheless, they both explicitly situate modern Anglo-American liberalism in its historical, political, and ideational context (Stears, 2001).

The both authors have analyzed the underlying ideals of the liberal movement but by self-consciously examining the ways in which those ideas have shaped, and have been shaped by, the demands of practical politics. Indeed, the efforts these books have made to replace analysis of liberal political thought within the political context in which it has emerged and operated provides a remarkable opportunity for a substantial reconsideration of the nature of modern liberalism itself (Stears, 2001). The central argument of both Smith’s and King’s work is that any examination of the influence of political ideas on the history of American and British public policy must focus as much on the continual promotion of modern liberalism’s antithesis, of illiberalism, as on the role of modern liberalism itself (218).

Smith has placed his emphasis on the importance of an ideological tradition in US history that he rather inelegantly calls “ascriptive inegalitarianism” (Stears, 2001). As Smith has defined it, this ideology seeks primarily to justify assigning the benefits and burdens of social and political life on the basis of the ascribed characteristics associated with the various races, genders, nationalities and religions into which people are born (P.218).

Whereas, King’s topics have stretched from American immigration restriction and British proposals for eugenic-based sterilization of the mentally ill to American New Deal work camps and to British New Labor workfare (Stears, 2001). As King has examined the origins of these policies, he has detected distinctly illiberal ideas motivating and legitimating them all; because all of these policies, King has contended, were explicitly designed to discriminate against certain groups in society. As a result of that, reconsideration of the nature of modern liberalism itself, there has been a widespread tendency amongst normative political theorists in recent years to understand modern liberalism as an ideological system that enjoys a dominant place (Stears, 2001) in modern society.

John Rawls’s political liberalism to take the most celebrated example presents an ideal-type historical explanation for how and why modern liberalism has reached a position of dominance in particular societies, and especially in the United States which has many echoes of this simplistic understanding (P.220). Rawls has suggested that liberal constitutional order was first adopted in the United States as a straightforward modus vivendi to prevent continual factional interests (Stears, 2001).

After witnessing the advantages implicit in the operation of such a constitution, though, Rawls has pointed out that the American people came slowly to accept the broad political principles of modern liberalism itself, despite those same citizens’ remaining differences of opinion on issues of morality, religion, and philosophy (P.220). Indeed, such was the success of the liberal polity that even the underlying philosophical, moral and religious beliefs, what Rawls calls the “comprehensive moral doctrines” of most citizens, were moderated by the experience of living in a liberal state. Eventually, most citizens came to accept that the political sphere should be governed by liberal principles even if those principles might initially have been considered incompatible with other of their deeply held convictions (Stears, 2001).

Thus, Rawls has concluded that what was initially accepted for instrumental gain becomes an essential part of individuals’ worldview, which makes modern liberalism moves from being one political ideology amongst others and becomes a dominant political culture (Stears, 2001). The story of modern American liberalism is characterized not by slow emergence to dominance, but rather by continual competition with the multiple traditions of American political life.

Protecting the Social Security and Medicare

Democratic Party believes that every American deserves a secure, healthy, and dignified retirement so, America’s seniors have earned their Medicare and Social Security through a lifetime of hard work and personal responsibility (Democratic Party, 2012). President Obama and democrats are committed to preserving that promise for this and future generations. Unlike republicans, democrats are committed to finding a solution to protect Social Security for future generations through blocking republicans’ efforts to subject Americans’ guaranteed retirement income to the whims of the stock market through privatization (Democratic Party,2012). Democratic Party believes that nearly 50 million older Americans and Americans with disabilities rely on Medicare each year, and the new health care law makes Medicare stronger by adding new benefits, fighting fraud, and improving care for patients.

Democrats believe that over 10 years, the law will save the average Medicare beneficiary $4,200 because President Obama is already leading the most successful crackdown on health care fraud ever, having already recovered $10 billion from health care scams (Democratic Party, 2012). Democrats have pointed out that more than five million seniors have already saved a money an average of $600 last year and the doughnut hole will be closed for good by 2020 (Democratic Party, 2012). In short, Democrats have believed that Social Security and Medicare must be kept strong for seniors, people with disabilities, and future generations.

On the other hand, Republicans are believing for the comprehensive reform, which should address American society’s remarkable medical advances in longevity and allow younger workers the option of creating their own personal investment accounts as supplements to the system (McDonnell, et al, 2012). Republican Party asserts that in order to restore public trust in the system, republicans are needed to commit to setting reform on a sound fiscal basis that will give workers control over, and a sound return on their investments (McDonnell, et al, 2012). Republicans believe that sooner they act, the sooner those close to retirement can be reassured of their benefits and younger workers can take responsibility for planning their own retirement decades from now. Unlike Social Security, the problems facing private pension plans are both demographic and ethical; while pension law may be complicated, the current bottom line is that many plans are increasingly underfunded by overestimating their rates of return on investments (McDonnell, et al, 2012).

Republicans have believed that this pension law, in turn, endangers the integrity of the Pension Guaranty Benefit Corporation, which is itself seriously underfunded. The Republican Party is committed to saving Medicare and Medicaid; unless the programs’ fiscal ship is righted, the individuals hurt the first and the worst will be those who depend on them the most (McDonnell, et al, 2012). Republicans believe that they will save Medicare by modernizing it, by empowering its participants, and by putting it on a secure financial footing. Republicans are determined to achieve that goal with a candid and honest presentation of the problem and its solutions to the American people (McDonnell, et al, 2012).

Republicans’ goal for both Medicare and Medicaid must be to assure that every participant receives the amount of care they need at the time they need it, whether for an expectant mother and her baby or for someone in the last moments of life (P.22). Republicans have asserted that absent reforms, these two programs are headed for bankruptcy that will endanger care for seniors and the poor (McDonnell, et al, 2012). They believe that the first step is to move the two programs away from their current unsustainable defined-benefit entitlement model to a fiscally sound defined contribution model. As those and other specific proposals show, Republican Governors and State legislatures are ready to do the hard work of modernizing Medicaid for the twenty-first century (McDonnell, et al, 2012).

Republicans propose to let them do all that and more by block-granting the program to the States, providing the States with the flexibility to design programs that meet the needs of their low-income citizens. They believe that such reforms could be achieved through premium supports or a refundable tax credit, allowing non-disabled adults and children to be moved into private health insurance of their choice, where their needs can be met on the same basis as those of more affluent Americans (P.22).

Providing for the Affordable Health Care

Democratic Party believes that accessible, affordable, high-quality health care is part of the American promise, that Americans should have the security that comes with good health care, and that no one should go broke because they get sick (Democratic Party, 2012). Over the determined opposition of republicans, democrats enacted landmark reforms that are already helping millions of Americans, and more benefits will come soon. Democrats have stated that as a result of their efforts, today, young Americans entering the workforce can stay on their parents’ plans (Democratic Party, 2012). They believe that Insurers can no longer refuse to cover kids with pre-existing medical conditions and they will no longer be able to arbitrarily cap and cancel coverage, or charge women more simply because of their gender.

Democrats have stated that no law is perfect, but they are committed to moving forward because they cannot allow the Republicans working to take away the benefits and protections that are already helping millions of Americans every day (Democratic Party, 2012). They have refused to go back to the days when health insurance companies had unchecked power to cancel your health policy, deny you coverage, or charge women more than men. Democrats believe that Affordable Care Act is not the end of efforts to improve health care for all Americans, however, they will continue to fight for a strong health care workforce with an emphasis on primary care (Democratic Party, 2012).

While, Congressional Republicans are committed to its repeal; and a Republican President, on the first day in office, will use his legitimate waiver authority under that law to halt its progress and then will sign its repeal. Republicans believe that American people, through the free market, can advance affordable and responsible healthcare reform that meets the needs and concerns of patients and providers (McDonnell, et al, 2012). Republicans believe that through Obamacare, the current Administration has promoted the notion of abortion as healthcare, for that main reason, they affirm the dignity of women by protecting the sanctity of human life (McDonnell, et al, 2012). They believe in many studies, which have shown that abortion endangers the health and wellbeing of women, and they stand firmly against it.

Stabilizing the Housing

President Obama and democrats took swift action to stabilize a housing market in crisis, helping five million families restructure their loans to help them stay in their homes, making it easier for families to refinance their mortgages and save hundreds of dollars a month, and giving tax credits to first-time home buyers (P.4). Democrats have held the largest financial institutions accountable by requiring them to provide relief for homeowners still struggling to pay their mortgages and to change practices that took advantage of homeowners (Democratic Party, 2012).

Democrats also understand the importance of helping communities fight back against the foreclosures that threaten entire neighborhoods, which is why the President proposed to expand the successful neighborhood stabilization efforts in his American Jobs Act. Democrats might continue fighting to give every responsible homeowner the chance to refinance their home, spurring investment in communities that have been hit hardest by foreclosure, and taking whatever steps they can to avoid more foreclosures (Democratic Party, 2012). Because the President and democrats are committed to creating an economy that’s built to last, where home ownership is an achievable dream for all Americans.

While, republicans want to establish a mortgage finance system based on competition and free enterprise that is transparent, encourages the private sector to return to housing, and promotes personal responsibility on the part of borrowers (McDonnell, et al, 2012). They believe for the policies that promote reliance on private capital, like private mortgage insurance, will be critical to scaling back the federal role in the housing market and avoiding future taxpayer bailouts. Also, republicans believe that reforms should provide clear and prudent underwriting standards and guidelines on acceptable lending practices (McDonnell, et al, 2012). Republicans blame democrats for the bailout they have approved to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which were a primary cause of the housing crisis because their implicit government guarantee allowed them to avoid market discipline and make risky investments.

They believe that both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should be wound down in size and scope, and their officials should be held to account because taxpayer dollars should not be used to bail out borrowers and lenders by funding principal write-downs (McDonnell, et al, 2012). Republicans believe that homeownership is an important goal, but public policy must be balanced to reflect the needs of Americans who choose to rent. Therefore, they believe that a comprehensive housing policy should address the demand for apartments and multi-family housing where assistance should be subject to stringent oversight to ensure that funds are spent wisely (McDonnell, et al, 2012).

Providing Education to Everyone

Democrats believe that getting an education is the surest path to the middle class, giving all students the opportunity to fulfill their dreams and contribute to our economy and democracy (Democratic Party, 2012). They are committed to ensuring that every child in America has access to a world-class public education so they can out-educate the world and make sure America has the world’s highest proportion of college graduates by 2020. Democrats believe that excellence at every level of Americans education system means they must close the achievement gap in America’s schools and ensure that in every neighborhood in the country, children can benefit from high-quality educational opportunities (Democratic Party, 2012).

They believe that promoting excellence of American education is one of the reasons why they have helped states develop comprehensive plans to raise standards and improve instruction in their early learning programs and invested in expanding and reforming Head Start. Democrats are committed to working with states and communities so they have the flexibility and resources they need to improve elementary and secondary education in a way that works best for students (Democratic Party, 2012). They are happy that forty-six states responded, leading groundbreaking reforms that will deliver better education to millions of American students.

To help keep college within reach for every student, democrats took on banks to reform the student loan program, saving more than $60 billion by removing the banks acting as middlemen so they can better and more directly invest in students (Democratic Party, 2012). To make college affordable for students of all backgrounds and confront the loan burden the students’ shoulder, democrats doubled their investment in Pell Grant scholarships and created the American Opportunity Tax Credit worth up to $10,000 (Democratic Party, 2012). Over four years of college, they are creating avenues for students to manage their federal student loans so that their payments can be only 10 percent of what they make each month (Democratic Party, 2012).

On the other hand, Republican Party believes that a chance for every child parents is responsible for the education of their children (McDonnell, et al, 2012). Republicans believe in a one size fits all approach to education and support providing broad education choices to parents and children at the State and local level. Republicans believe that education is much more than schooling because education is the whole range of activities by which families and communities transmit to a younger generation, not just knowledge and skills, but ethical and behavioral norms and traditions (McDonnell, et al, 2012). They believe that education is the handing over of a personal and cultural identity, that is why education choice has expanded so vigorously.

Republicans believe that the U.S. spends an average of more than $10,000 per pupil per year in public schools, for a total of more than $550 billion (McDonnell, et al, 2012). However, they believe that, if money were the solution, then schools would be problem-free because of mentioning above total money spends on the education; thus, they believe that more money alone does not necessarily equal better performance (McDonnell, et al, 2012). Republicans have supported the promotion of local career and technical educational programs and entrepreneurial programs that have been supported by leaders in industry and will retrain and retool the American workforce, which is the best in the world.

They believe in reforming legislation concept of block grants and the repeal of numerous federal regulations which interfere with State and local control of public schools (McDonnell, et al, 2012). On high education, republicans call on State officials to ensure that our public colleges and universities be places of learning and the exchange of ideas, not zones of intellectual intolerance favoring the Left (McDonnell, et al, 2012).

Supporting the Military Families and Veterans

President Obama and the Democratic Party are committed to keeping the sacred trust they have with American troops, military families, and veterans (Democratic Party, 2012). Democrats believe that they will not only continue to support them in the field, but they will also continue to prioritize support for wounded warriors, mental health, and the well-being of American military families and veterans. Democrats will keep working to give American veterans the health care, benefits, education, and job opportunities that they have earned (Democratic Party, 2012). The President and the Democratic Party have supported the Post-9/11 G.I. Bill to provide opportunities for military personnel, veterans, and their families to get a better education (Democratic Party, 2012).

The Democratic Party is working to ensure returning veterans are able to get good jobs and put their skills to good use at home. The President and democrats have launched partnerships with the private sector to help veterans transfer their experience into skilled manufacturing jobs; they have proposed a new Veterans Jobs Corps to put veterans to work as first responders (Democratic Party, 2012). Equally, the President has signed an executive order making it harder for for-profit colleges to prey on veterans and also enacted the Returning Heroes Tax Credit and the Wounded Warrior Tax Credit to give companies incentives to hire vets (Democratic Party, 2012). Democrats have substantially increased funding for the VA and directed it to eliminate its backlog of claims, hire additional claims processors, and deploy new systems to improve claims processing times.

A Sacred Obligation America has a sacred trust with American veterans, thus, republicans have committed to providing them and their families with care and dignity (McDonnell, et al, 2012). The work of the Department of Veterans Affairs-with a staff of 300,000-is essential to meet America obligations to them: providing health, education, disability, survivor, and home loan benefit services and arranging memorial services upon death (McDonnell, et al, 2012). To that end, republicans will consider a fundamental change in structure to make the regional directors of the Department presidential appointees rather than careerists.

Republicans believe in making military and veterans’ medicine the gold standard for mental health care, advances in prosthetics, and treatment of trauma and eye injuries (McDonnell, et al, 2012). Republican have committed to ending homelessness for our veterans, but one key is to assist their reentry into the job market as soon as possible after military service ends. Republicans urge the private sector to make hiring vets a company policy and commend the many organizations that have specific programs to accomplish this (McDonnell, et al, 2012); however, the federal government must take the lead by simplifying the paperwork required for a tax break for hiring a veteran and by giving vets their assured place at the head of the training and employment line

Taking Care of Americans with Disabilities

President Obama and the Democratic Party will continue to lead efforts to facilitate the access of Americans with disabilities to the middle class, employment opportunities, and the ability to lead full, productive, and satisfying lives (Democratic Party, 2012). President Obama and the Democratic Party are committed to assisting the approximately 50 million people in this country living with disabilities, assuring their full integration into society. Democrats have committed to expanding access to employment for people with disabilities and removing barriers to work.

The Affordable Care Act enacted by democrats is opening access to health insurance to Americans with disabilities who were previously excluded because of preexisting conditions, expanding access to Medicaid, and helping Medicaid to support home- and community-based services to keep people in their communities (Democratic Party, 2012). Democrats have committed to ensuring that Americans with disabilities can exercise their right to vote and have access to the polls. Democrats will continue to oppose all efforts to weaken the landmark Americans with Disabilities Act, and they will vigorously enforce laws that prevent discrimination (Democratic Party, 2012).

Moreover, republicans have renewed their commitment to the inclusion of Americans with disabilities in all aspects of American national life. In keeping with that commitment, Republicans oppose the non-consensual withholding of care or treatment from people with disabilities, including newborns, as well as the elderly and infirm, just as they oppose euthanasia and assisted suicide (McDonnell, et al, 2012), which endanger especially those on the margins of society. Republicans need to update the statutory authority for the Ability One program, a major avenue by which those productive members of our society can offer high-quality services.

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) has opened up unprecedented opportunities for many students, and republicans reaffirm their support for its goal of minimizing the separation of children with disabilities from their peers (McDonnell, et al, 2012). Republicans have endorsed the program of Employment First, developed by major disability rights groups, to replace dependency with jobs in the mainstream of the American workforce.

Recognizing Faith-Based Organizations

The Democratic Party believes that the nation, the communities, and their lives are made vastly stronger and richer by faith and the countless acts of justice and mercy it inspires (Democratic Party, 2012). They believe that faith-based organizations will always be critical allies in meeting the challenges that face the nation and the world – from domestic and global poverty, to climate change and human trafficking. People of faith and religious organizations do amazing work in communities across this country and the world, and democrats believe in lifting up and valuing that good work, and finding ways to support it where possible (Democratic Party, 2012). The Democratic Party believes in constitutionally sound, evidence-based partnerships with faith-based and other nonprofit organizations to serve those in need and advance their shared interests.

On the other hand, republicans pledge to respect the religious beliefs and rights of conscience of all Americans and to safeguard the independence of their institutions from the government (McDonnell, et al, 2012). Republicans support the public display of the Ten Commandments as a reflection of our history and of our country’s Judeo-Christian heritage, and they affirm the right of students to engage in prayer at public school events in public schools and to have equal access to public schools and other public facilities to accommodate religious freedom in the public square (P.12). Republicans assert every citizen’s right to apply religious values to public policy and the right of faith-based organizations to participate fully in public programs without renouncing their beliefs, removing religious symbols, or submitting to government-imposed hiring practices.

Protecting the Laws of Civil Rights

Democrats are believed in an America where everybody gets a fair shot and everybody plays by the same set of rules. At the core of the Democratic Party is the principle that no one should face discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, language, religion, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability status (Democratic Party, 2012). They support the civil rights statutes and they have stepped up enforcement of laws that prohibit discrimination in the workplace and other settings because they are committed to protecting all communities from violence. Democrats are committed to ending racial, ethnic, and religious profiling and requiring federal, state, and local enforcement agencies to take steps to eliminate the practice, and we continue to support enforcement of Title VI (Democratic Party, 2012).

Democrats are committed to equal opportunity for all Americans and to making sure that every American is treated equally under the law. Hence, they have reaffirmed their support for the Equal Rights Amendment, recommit to enforcing Title IX, support the Paycheck Fairness Act, and will urge ratification of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (Democratic Party, 2012). Democrats have supported the Employment Non-Discrimination Act because people should not be fired based on their sexual orientation or gender identity, therefore, President Obama and the Democratic Party are committed to ensuring all Americans are treated fairly.

Whereas, Republicans asserted that every citizen’s right to apply religious values to public policy and the right of faith-based organizations to participate fully in public programs without renouncing their beliefs, removing religious symbols, or submitting to government-imposed hiring practices (McDonnell, et al, 2012). Republicans oppose government discrimination against businesses due to religious views. They support the First Amendment right of freedom of association of the Boy Scouts of America and other service organizations whose values are under assault and condemn the State blacklisting of religious groups which decline to arrange adoptions by same-sex couples (P.12). Republicans condemn the hate campaigns, threats of violence, and vandalism by proponents of same-sex marriage against advocates of traditional marriage and call for a federal investigation into attempts to deny religious believers their civil rights (McDonnell, et al, 2012). Republicans oppose any restrictions or conditions that would discourage Americans from exercising their constitutional right to enter the political fray or limit their commitment to their ideals.

As a result, republicans are supported repeal of the remaining sections of McCain-Feingold, support either raising or repealing contribution limits, and oppose passage of the DISCLOSE Act or any similar legislation designed to vitiate the Supreme Court’s recent decisions protecting political speech in Wisconsin Right to Life v. Federal Election Commission and Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (P.12). Republicans oppose governmental censorship of speech through the so-called Fairness Doctrine or by government enforcement of speech codes, free speech zones, or other forms of “political correctness” on campus (McDonnell, et al, 2012). They are supported pending legislation to prevent unwarranted or unreasonable governmental intrusion through the use of aerial surveillance or flyovers on U.S. soil, with the exception of patrolling our national borders. Republicans believe that the enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people (McDonnell, et al, 2012).

Protecting the Laws of Voting rights

Democratic Party believes the right to vote and to have your vote counted is an essential American freedom, and we oppose laws that place unnecessary restrictions on those seeking to exercise that freedom (Democratic Party, 2012). They have a proud history of standing up for the right to vote. Democrats recognize that voter identification laws can disproportionately burden young voters, people of color, low-income families, people with disabilities, and the elderly, and we refuse to allow the use of political pretexts to disenfranchise American citizens (Democratic Party, 2012). While, republicans support State efforts to ensure ballot access for the elderly, the handicapped, military personnel, and all authorized voters (McDonnell, et al, 2012). For the same reason, they applaud legislation to require photo identification for voting and to prevent election fraud, particularly with regard to registration and absentee ballots.

Republicans support State laws that require proof of citizenship at the time of voter registration to protect our electoral system against a significant and growing form of voter fraud (McDonnell, et al, 2012). Republicans recognize that having a physical verification of the vote is the best way to ensure a fair election. They strongly support the policy that all electronic voting systems have a voter verified paper audit trail. Republicans call for States and political subdivisions to adopt voting systems that can verify the identity of the voter (McDonnell, et al, 2012). They affirm that our troops, wherever stationed, be allowed to vote and those votes are counted in the November election and in all elections.

Republicans support changing the way that the decennial census is conducted so that citizens are distinguished from lawfully present aliens and illegal aliens (McDonnell, et al, 2012). They believe that in order to preserve the principle of one-person, one vote, the apportionment of representatives among the States should be according to the number of citizens.

Protecting the Right of Woman to Choose

The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay (Democratic Party, 2012). Democrats are opposed any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right because they believe that abortion is an intensely personal decision between a woman, her family, her doctor, and her clergy without government restriction. They recognize that health care and education help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce the need for abortions. Whereas, republicans have asserted that the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed (McDonnell, et al, 2012). They oppose using public revenues to promote or perform abortion or fund organizations which perform or advocate it and will not fund or subsidize health care which includes abortion coverage.

They oppose the nonconsensual withholding or withdrawal of care or treatment, including food and water, from people with disabilities, including newborns, as well as the elderly and infirm, just as we oppose active and passive euthanasia and assisted suicide (McDonnell, et al, 2012). Republican leadership has led the effort to prohibit the barbaric practice of partial-birth abortion and permitted States to extend health care coverage to children before birth (McDonnell, et al, 2012). They urge Congress to strengthen the Born Alive Infant Protection Act by enacting appropriate civil and criminal penalties on healthcare providers who fail to provide treatment and care to an infant who survives an abortion, including early induction delivery where the death of the infant is intended (P14). They call for legislation to ban sex-selective abortions-gender discrimination in its most lethal for and to protect from abortion unborn children who are capable of feeling pain.

Protecting the Freedom of Individual to Marry

Democrats have supported the right of all families to have equal respect, responsibilities, and protections under the law (Democratic Party, 2012. They have supported marriage equality and supported the movement to secure equal treatment under law for same-sex couples. On the other hand, democrats are opposed discriminatory federal and state constitutional amendments and other attempts to deny equal protection of the laws to committed same-sex couples who seek the same respect and responsibilities as other married couples (Democratic Party, 2012). They have supported the full repeal of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act and the passage of the Respect for Marriage Act. While, Republicans are reaffirmed their support for a Constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman (McDonnell, et al, 2012). They have applauded the citizens of the majority of States which have enshrined in their constitutions the traditional concept of marriage, and we support the campaigns underway in several other States to do so.

Ensuring the Public Safety, Justice, and Crime Prevention

Democrats support efforts to ensure our courageous police officers and first responders are equipped with the best technology, equipment, and innovative strategies to prevent and fight crimes (Democratic Party, 2012). Democrats believe that they will end the dangerous cycle of violence, especially youth violence, by continuing to invest in proven community-based law enforcement programs such as the Community Oriented Policing Services program. They have promised to support local prison-to-work programs and other initiatives to reduce recidivism, making citizens safer and saving the taxpayers money (Democratic Party, 2012). Democrats have stated that they understand the disproportionate effects of crime, violence, and incarceration on communities of color and they are committed to working with those communities to find solutions. They have asserted that they will continue to fight inequalities in our criminal justice system that why they believe that the death penalty must not be arbitrary (Democratic Party, 2012).

They have stated that they must help state, local, territorial, and tribal law enforcement work together to combat and prevent drug crime and drug and alcohol abuse, which are blights on our communities. Democrats have supported the rights of victims to be respected, heard, and compensated; on the other hand, they are committed to ending violence against women (Democratic, 2012). They have stated that they must help state, local, territorial, and tribal law enforcement work together to combat and prevent drug crime and drug and alcohol abuse, which are blights on our communities. Democrats have supported the rights of victims to be respected, heard, and compensated; on the other hand, they are committed to ending violence against women (Democratic Party, 2012).

Moreover, Republican are supported mandatory prison sentencing for gang crimes, violent or sexual offenses against children, repeat drug dealers, rape, robbery, and murder (McDonnell, et al, 2012). They have supported a national registry for convicted child murderers; however, they oppose parole for dangerous or repeat felons. They believe that courts should have the option of imposing the death penalty in capital murder cases (McDonnell, et al, 2012). They believe that criminals injured in the course of their crimes should not be able to seek monetary damages from their intended victims or from the public. They have endorsed State and local initiatives that are trying new approaches, often called accountability courts (McDonnell, et al, 2012).

They believe that government at all levels should work with faith-based institutions that have proven track records in diverting young and the first time, non-violent offenders from criminal careers, for which we salute them. Republicans have also endorsed State and local initiatives that are trying new approaches to curbing drug abuse and diverting first-time offenders to rehabilitation (McDonnell, et al, 2012). They believe that the authorities must regain control of their correctional institutions, for they cannot allow prisons to become ethnic or racial battlegrounds. Republicans have called on the States to make it a bipartisan priority to protect the rights of crime victims, who should also be assured of access to social and legal services; and they have also called on the Congress to make the federal courts a model in this regard for the rest of the country (P.37).

Republican believe that resources of the federal government’s law enforcement and judicial systems have been strained by two unfortunate expansions: the overcriminalization of behavior and the over-federalization of offenses. They believe that Federal criminal law should focus on acts by federal employees or acts committed on federal property and leave the rest to the States.

Promoting for Social Innovation of Families to Eradicate Poverty

 The Democratic Party believes, as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. did, that everybody can be great because everybody can serve. The Democrats Party has stated that the challenges America faces are unprecedented and the new foundation for economic growth Americans need in America will not be built by Washington alone-it is going to take all of us, working together (Democratic Party, 2012). To this end, Democrats enacted the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act, increasing the size of AmeriCorps and creating more opportunities for Americans of all ages to serve their communities (Democratic Party, 2012).

Democrats believe that solutions to America’s challenges are being developed every day at the grassroots level, and the government should be supporting those efforts. They have created a Social Innovation Fund that is leveraging millions in private sector dollars to invest in programs with a proven track record of success (Democratic Party, 2012). Democrats believe that all parents and caregivers regardless of gender need more flexibility and support in the workplace. Hence, they support passing the Healthy Families Act, broadening the Family and Medical Leave Act, and partnering with states to move toward paid leave.

With prevention and treatment initiatives on obesity and public health, Democrats are leading the way on supporting healthier, more physically active families and healthy children (Democratic Party, 2012). Once the President took office, they were losing hundreds of thousands of jobs a month, however, the President and Democrats took immediate action to get the economy moving again. Through expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit and the Child Tax Credit, and supporting unemployment insurance benefits and food stamps, the Recovery Act kept seven million people out of poverty and reduced poverty for 32 million more in 2010 (Democratic Party, 2012).

Democrats believe in raising the minimum wage and index it to inflation through continuing fighting for equal pay for equal work, a strong labor movement, and access to a world-class education for every child. They understand that poverty disproportionately affects communities of color and they are committed to working with those most affected by poverty. Democrats will continue the improvements in refundable tax credits for low-income families to encourage work and education while lifting families out of poverty (Democratic Party, 2012). To enhance access and equity in employment, education, and business opportunities, democrats encourage initiatives to remove barriers to equal opportunity that still exist in America.

On the other hand, the Republican Party has led welfare reforms enacted in 1996 marked a revolution in government’s approach to poverty. Republicans have taken the belief of most Americans-that welfare should be a hand up, not a handout and made it law (McDonnell, et al, 2012). Republicans believe that work requirements, though modest, were at the heart of this success, but they have blamed democrats for their recent decision to permit waivers for work requirements for welfare benefits, or repeal the most successful anti-poverty policy in memory. Republican believe that for the sake of low-income families as well as the taxpayers, the federal government’s entire system of public assistance should be reformed to ensure that it promotes work (McDonnell, et al, 2012). Republicans believe that each year, this system dispenses nearly $1 trillion in taxpayer funds across a maze of approximately 80 programs that are neither coordinated nor effective in solving poverty and lifting up families.

Protecting the Environment

The Democrats Party has committed to protecting our natural resources while creating jobs, preserving habitats, and ensuring that future generations can enjoy our nation’s outdoor heritage. From investing in clean energy to protecting our air, land, and water, Democrats have made protecting the environment a top priority (Democratic Party, 2012). President Obama has taken the most significant strides in decades to cut pollution and advance public health-protecting our children and communities from harmful pollution by restoring and advancing safeguards for clean air and water and by working to reduce carbon pollution (P.20). Pollutants like nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, and mercury are a threat to human health, and Democrats will continue to stand up to polluters in the interest of environmental and public health (Democratic Party, 2012).

Also, democrats believe that global climate change is one of the biggest threats of this generation an economic, environmental, and national security catastrophe in the making. The Democratic Party pledges to continue showing international leadership on climate change, working toward an agreement to set emission limits in unison with other emerging powers (Democratic Party, 2012). Likewise, democrats believe in continuing pursuing efforts to combat climate change at home as well, because reducing our emissions domestically-through regulation and the market solutions are necessary to continue being an international leader on this issue. They understand that global climate change may disproportionately affect the poor, and they are committed to environmental justice (Democratic Party, 2012).

Equally, Democrats believe in continuing to work with local communities to conserve our publicly-owned lands and dramatically expand investments in conserving and restoring forests, grasslands, and wetlands across America for generations to come. Consistently, democrats believe in continuing working to ensure the integrity of the waters Americans rely on every day for drinking, swimming, and fishing, by supporting initiatives that restore our rivers, oceans, coasts, and watersheds (Democratic Party, 2012). Similarly, democrats believe in preserving landscapes and ecosystems and open more lands and waters for hunting, fishing, and recreation.

To ensure environment continued support by the American people, however, republicans need a dramatic change in the attitude of officials in Washington, a shift from a job-killing punitive mentality to a spirit of cooperation with producers, landowners, and the public (McDonnell, et al, 2012). Republicans encourage the use of agricultural best management practices among the States to reduce pollution. The Republican Party believes in the moral obligation of the people to be good stewards of the God-given natural beauty and resources of our country and bases environmental policy on several common-sense principles (McDonnell, et al, 2012). For example, they believe people are the most valuable resource, and human health and safety are the most important measurements of success.

Republican believe that a policy protecting these objectives, however, must balance economic development and private property rights in the short run with conservation goals over the long run (McDonnell, et al, 2012). Also, republicans believe that public access to public lands for recreational activities such as hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting should be permitted on all appropriate federal lands. Republican Party endorses legislation to require congressional approval before any rule projected to cost in excess of $100 million to American consumers can go into effect (McDonnell, et al, 2012). The Republican Party supports appointing public officials to federal agencies who will properly and correctly apply environmental laws and regulations, always in support of economic development, job creation, and American prosperity and leadership.

Republicans demand an end to the EPA’s participation in “sue and settle” lawsuits, sweetheart litigation brought by environmental groups to expand the Agency’s regulatory activities against the wishes of Congress and the public (McDonnell, et al, 2012). They believe in requiring full transparency in litigation under the nation’s environmental laws, including advance notice to all State and local governments, tribes, businesses, landowners, and the public who could be adversely affected. Republicans likewise support pending legislation to ensure cumulative analysis of EPA regulations and to require full transparency in all EPA decisions, so that the public will know in advance their full impact on jobs and the economy (McDonnell, et al, 2012).

They also call on Congress to take quick action to prohibit the EPA from moving forward with new greenhouse gas regulations that will harm the nation’s economy and threaten millions of jobs over the next quarter century (McDonnell, et al, 2012).

Inclusion and Discussion

Justice is most likely to be equality or fairness, impartiality, righteousness, reasonableness, morality, etc. which must be considered by public officials when making the decisions or actions about something involve the public social policy for a nation state and government’s purpose of maximizing the welfare of human. Thus, modern liberalism or Democratic Party believes that the roles in which public officials should play in the nation state and government for the purposes of maximizing human welfare and to meet human need rest on the distribution of wealthy through raising the minimum wage; investing in the renewable energy sources and housing; adopting the better tax code for low-income working families; investing in the education and the health care coverage; providing the jobs to the individuals with the disabilities; reforming the criminal justice system; raising taxes on the wealthy individuals for funding the rests of above-mentioned, etc.

In the last quarter-century, Americans have carried on a lively argument over the nature of distributive justice and equality of opportunity (Lockhart, 1994). The distinct two conceptions of distributive justice and equality of opportunity, drawing on conflicting underlying visions of distributive justice and adopting different stances toward social policy, have emerged in both academic and popular circles (Lockhart, 1994). In academic circles, two publications of the early 1970s helped to stimulate interest in this argument and to focus it (Lockhart, 1994). Since the publication of John Rawls’s, theory of Justice in 1971, many liberal theorists have come to accept that civil and political rights and liberties will benefit people very little if those people lack the resources required to take advantage of the opportunities provided them (P.272).

In the first of these works, Rawls draws on both the Anglo-liberal and particularly the Kantian traditions and develops a theory of substantive distributive justice with a strong egalitarian or modern liberal flavor (Lockhart, 1994). Rawls has inclined against imposing strict equality as he thinks that retaining incentives for some to do better will facilitate raising the condition of all (Lockhart, 1994). His concern with respect to material distribution focuses on improving the condition of the least well-off, a maximin criterion. On the other hand, Nozick has engaged this perspective by drawing heavily on earlier elements of the individualistic or conservative Anglo-liberal tradition (Lockhart, 1994).

In his view, distributive justice is to be found in a process rather than in particular results; thus, he has argued that bargains reached through the exercise of similar basic rights and resting on mutual consent are just (Lockhart, 1994). These bargains are apt to create greater divergence of outcomes than Rawls’s concern for equality of condition will tolerate (Lockhart, 1994). For instance, Rawls’s concern with holding results within certain limits requires, in Nozick’s view, nearly continual public intervention in individuals’ lives. The limits of these interventions are designed to achieve disrupt the web of individual decisions of which society is in Nozick’s view appropriately constructed about the value of others’ services (Lockhart, 1994).

These two views justice as a maximin version of reducing inequalities of the condition and as an equality of opportunity bargaining process do not monopolize contemporary American thought about distributive justice. Rawls and Nozick give voice to views widely supported in both academic and popular circles, views that focus and dominate the contemporary American practical political argument over distributive justice (Lockhart,1994). Characteristically, adherents of differing views will have coherent frames of reference for interpreting the same facts and moral issues in different ways (Lockhart, 1994). For instance, from the perspective of modern liberals or democrats, sharp differences in the distribution of resources among persons are perceived as violations of natural human equality. Modern liberals or democrats attribute these differences to the stratifying effects of perverse social institutions such as hierarchies and markets. Though for conservative or republicans, similar interpersonal differences tend to be perceived as the natural consequences of variations in individual conscious purposes.

The persistence of this particular form of distributive justice conflict reveals the long-term prominence of conservatives and modern liberals’ ways of life in the United States. Throughout the last century, American modern liberals have progressively tried to further their way of life by building a larger, more active state that can counter some effects of the great concentrations of private power amassed by industrial corporations (Lockhart, 1994). Modern liberals have used this state to decrease selective inequalities of the condition through greater taxation of high-income entities, improved income transfers, and public services for the less-well-off, and efforts aimed at easing disadvantaged persons’ access to educational and occupational experiences (Lockhart, 1994).

Conservatives have, in contrast, supported what they perceive as just procedures by attempting to reduce coercive regulations on bargaining among individuals (taxation, de jure racial discrimination, etc. Conservatives, following Locke, usually limit their conception of human equality to general capacities such as rationality. For instance, John Locke argued that all persons have the freedom to be governed only by a state to which they have given their consent and that all persons have a moral right to ownership of the fruits of their labor (Graham, 2001).

Whereas, modern liberals have broader visions, regularly including, as Gewirth does, for instance, human needs. Modern liberals have followed the John Rawls as he has explained in his first principle of justice that each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for other (Rawls, 1999). Rawls has explained in his second principle that social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both (a) reasonably expected to be to everyone’s advantage, and (b) attached to positions and offices upon to all (Rawls, 1999). The distribution of wealth and income and the hierarchies of authority must be consistent with both the liberties of equal citizenship and equality of opportunity. Rawls’s general conception of justice states that all social values liberty and opportunity, income, and wealth, and the bases of self-respect are to be distributed equally unless an unequal distribution of any, or all, of these values, is to everyone’s advantage (Rawls, 1999). As respecters of persons, conservative and modern liberals share support for some types of individual rights. Indeed, both conservative and modern liberals contributed to the early stages of the civil rights movement of the 1960s.

Each political ideology or political party’s economic development is always rested on the economic theory that has adopted by its political leadership for the improvement of the economic well-being and quality of life for every individual within a country. For that purpose, modern liberalism or Democratic Party’s social economy policy is rested on distributing economic justice through building renewable energy; innovating American community, American manufacturing, and the American automobile industry; standing up for workers; helping small businesses; opened markets all for American products; and supporting insourcing for a purpose of maximizing welfare of human. The modern liberalism or ideology of Democratic Party is essentially associated with the concepts of justice of John Rawls.

While, Conservativism or ideology of Republican Party is basically associated with the Nozick’s conception of justice is based in terms of three principles of just holdings in which he argues that anyone who justly acquires any holding is rightly entitled to keep and use it (Coleman, 1976).  Second, anyone who acquires any holding by means of a just transfer of property is rightly entitled to keep and use it (Coleman, 1976).  It is only through some combination of these two approaches that anyone is rightly entitled to any holding; thus, third, justice can require the rectification of unjust past acquisitions.  These three principles of a just holdings-the principle of acquisition of holdings, the principle of transfer of holdings, and the principle of rectification of the violations of the first two principle-constitute the core of Nozick’s libertarian entitlement theory of justice (Coleman, 1976).

About Author: Mr. Simon Deng Kuol Deng is SPLM Former Secretary General in New York-USA. Mr. Deng is currently a graduate student for the Master’s Degree of Science in Political Science, SNHU, U.S.A. He holds the Degree of Bachelor of Arts in Political Science, general concentration in the three Subfields: The American Politics and Governments; Comparative Politics and Comparative Governments; and International Relations, from the State University of New York at Buffalo (UB) USA. He also holds the Degree of Associate in Applied Science in Office Management and Administration from the State College of New York at Buffalo, Erie Community College (ECC) USA. He Attended Training for Rapid Impact Public Finance Management Project, sponsored by World Bank, School of Management Science, University of Juba and KCA University, Kenya and obtained a post Certificate in Procurement in 2011. He can be reached by smndeng@yahoo.com or simondeng.deng@snhu.edu

References

Amenta, Edward, Bonastia, Chis, and Caren, Neal (2001). US Social Policy in Comparative and Historical Perspective: Concepts, Images, Arguments, and Research Strategies. Annual Review of Sociology, (2yes

7), PP. 213-234.

Chilman, S. Catherine (1973). Public Social Policy and Population Problems in the United States. Social Service Review, 47, (4), PP. 511-530.

Coleman, James S. (1976). Robert Nozick’s Anarchy, State, and Utopia, 3 (3), PP. 147-442.

Cutierrez, Daniel (2005). John Rawls and Policy Formation. Review of Policy Research, 22 (3), PP.737-742).

Democratic National Platform (2012). Moving America Forward. (PP. 1-32). Retrieved from: www.presidency.ucsb.edu/paper-pdf/101962.pdf.

Graham, M. Kevin (2001). Racism and the Limits of Distributive Justice. Public Affairs Quarterly, 15, (3), PP. 271-289.

Gilpin, Robert (2015). The Nature of Political Economy. In the Art, R. J. & Jervis, R. International Politics. Enduring Concepts and Contemporary Issues, (12th Edition). Pearson Education, Inc.

Graham, M. Kevin (2001). Racism and the Limits of Distributive Justice. Public Affairs Quarterly, 15, (3), PP. 271-289.

Hiscox, J. Michael (2015). The Domestic Sources of Foreign Economic Policies. In the Art, R. J. & Jervis, R. International Politics. Enduring Concepts and Contemporary Issues, (12th Edition). Pearson Education, Inc.

Lockhart, Charles (1994). Socially Constructed Conceptions of Distributive Justice: The Case of Affirmative Action. The Review of Politics, 56, (1), PP. 29-49.

Mahon, Rianne (2008). Varieties of Liberalism: Canadian Social Policy from the ‘Golden Age’ to the Present, Social Policy, and Administration. Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Oxford, UK, 42 (4), PP. 342-361.  

McDonnell, Bob; Hoeven, John; Blackburn, Marsha (2012). We Believe in America. Republican Platform. (PP. 1-62). Retrieved from: https://prod-static-ngop-pbl-s3.amazonaws-com/docs/2012/GOPPlatform.pdf

Neal, Patrick (2000). Three Readings of Political Liberalism: Rawls, Maritain, and Crick, Journal of Political Ideologies, 5 (5). PP.225-246.

Rawls, John (1999). Two Principles of Justice. In the Rosen, Michael & Wolff, Jonathan (edited). Political Thought. United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.

Stears, Marc (2001). Beyond the Logic of Liberalism: Learning from Illiberalism in Britain and the United States, 6 (2), PP.215-230.

Vargas Hernandez, José G; Noruzi, Mohammad Reza; Irani, Farhad, Nezhad Haj Ali (2011). What is Policy, Social Policy and Social Policy Changing? International Journal of Business and Social Science, 2 (10), PP. 287-291.

 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s