Welcome to Mr. Kirby's AP Euroblog. This site is for all CHS students and guest to comment on topics relating to AP Modern European history.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Baradat Readings
What are your initial impressions of Baradat? Write a critical review of the first few chapters of Baradat's Political Ideologies. Please support your opinion with well reasoned analysis and evidence!
I greatly enjoy Baradat’s work. I find him interesting, thoughtful, and logical. Personally, I find these things to be very important when reading any text, especially one of a political nature. Baradat goes past the typical definitions of conservative, liberal, etc. to really cause understanding of these terms. Irregardless of whom you is. Misusery of the American language ain’t no small problem. One simply must know the meanings of the words one says. After all, to call someone in this time conservative means something entirely different from calling someone conservative in the 1700s. I do, however, have one issue with Baradat’s classifications regarding a conservative versus a liberal viewpoint. He implies that a conservative viewpoint is often tied to religion. I do not believe this is true. I would say that most highly religious people are conservative, but not that most conservatives are highly religious. The liberal movement in America, emerging from the Democratic Party, came from the “Progressives” who wanted to prohibition. This stemmed from religion. The “liberal” part of America, came from religion. Barrack Obama is technically an Evangelical, he believes in God, and he believes Christ died for his sins. (I think this is ridiculous, but let’s not talk about religion too much ;)) However, Obama interprets religion differently from Dubya. We can certainly say that Obama’s ideas seem very different from Dubya’s. Other than the religion issue, I very much enjoy Baradat’s writing. I feel that he is apt in his descriptions and in his ideas. I felt I learned from him, and I felt he knew what he was talking about.
The Baradat readings were interesting to read. As a person who is not very interested in politics, and for that matter, hardly pays attention to politics, I still found this reading to be engaging. The historical exploration into Ideology and its origins was presented in a thoughtful manner. His presentation of the economic basis of the political ideologies as well as the religious basis helps in following his train of thought. I found his discussion of the origins of the term ideology and the continuation of that discussion to the different views of what ideology exactly is to be very interesting. However, I did not entirely agree with the obvious influences of his own views upon the article. He clearly is biased in his discussion of the political spectrum, as well as in many other sections of the article. I also do not entirely agree with his presentation of the political spectrum, as he describes it as a line with two opposite and extreme ends. Rather I believe that it should be presented more as a circle, with the two ends being closer to one another than with the middle. That is, that radical and reactionary views are closer to each other, and easier to transition between than those of liberalism and conservatives. His diagrams exhibiting the relationships that exist in demand-side and supply-side economics were also of interest. His discussions of the economic systems and views of economy were somewhat interesting, but seemed a bit unneeded in light of the focus placed on the discussions of the political systems. I also did not like the emphasis of the American examples, and how he seemed to always compare the different ideologies that he is discussing with the American versions. It seemed like an unnecessary comparison, with little overall effectiveness, and also seemed to take away from the examples. It would have been more effective to continue with the use of global examples, which would help to show how these ideologies were in fact applicable to all governments. A good thing about his comparisons to the American government was his discussion of how the society of the United States viewed progressive and retrogressive movements. His discussion of the progressive/retrogressive movements shows how Americans are in fact biased against retrogressive movement and in favor of progressive movement as a result of the influences of society. His use of the comparison of the British, U.S., and Saudi Arabian political spectrum and where their views tend to lie concerning one issue, that being Public Employee Strikes both seems to emphasize parts of his argument, as well as take away from it. The example helps to show how the status quo can be within each system, as well as how each government has its own status quo. However the example still places a large influence on the United States style of government, and therefore takes away from the idea of ideology and the political spectrum being a global basis.
In my opinion, the Baradat article was pretty good. I had some issues with the article and how it was written though. Throughout the first chapter of the book, there was no clear definition of what an ideology was. I realize that this issue was and is still debated but I did not like the fact that I never really got a clear view on what exactly and ideology was. That made the rest of the chapter a little more challenging to understand since I did not fully understand the concept that was involved in this chapter. I found it a little odd that he put so many opinions about what ideology was into his novel. He included the ones of Louis Claude Destutt de Tracey, Karl Marx, Frederick Watkins, David Ingersoll, L.T. Sargent, and Terrence Ball. He, however, did not include his own opinion on what he believes is the definition of ideology. Another thing that I liked about the reading was the fact that he broke parts of it down so that the common person would be able to understand what he was talking about. An example of this would be when he talks about the five properties that are significant to the definition of ideology. He simply lists the five items and then explains them. They are: 1. the fact that it is a political term, 2. it has to do with the present and the future, 3. it deals with action, 4. it is directed towards the masses, and 5. they are written in simple terms so people can understand them. One of the aspects that I liked was the fact that he often used illustrations in his discussion of the “spectrum of political attitudes”. I thought it was very helpful to see his idea of the spectrum drawn out. It made the concept much easier to visualize since you had an idea of it in front of you. I also think that Baradat did a good job with the descriptions of each of the political attitudes on the spectrum. He used good examples for each and that made it easier to understand exactly what he meant when he was talking about each one. For Radicals, he used the example of Mahatma Gandhi who was a pacifist, which is a type of radicalism. He did not use any type of violence in his actions which shows that he was different from most of the radicals. Being a radical just means that you want a significant amount of change to happen in a relatively short period of time because you really do not like what is currently going on in your country. Besides the one criticism that I had of the article, overall I believed that the article was well written and it explained almost everything that I had questioned before I had read it.
I found the Baradat reading very interesting. As someone who is fairly interested in politics, I found there were many aspects of Baradat’s writing that I agreed with. However, I also found myself in disagreement with a few of his fundamental points.
I thought the most interesting part was chapter two, which discussed the spectrum of political attitudes. Baradat discusses the spectrum in relation to the commonly used terms of radical, liberal, moderate, conservative, and reactionary. He notes that “most of us…will find themselves at several different places on the spectrum in relation to a variety of specific issues.” (17). I find this very insightful, particularly at a time when our nation seems so divided over which political party they support. Although I am too young to vote, I already see that I do not agree entirely with either party. Another great point Baradat makes is that “Being clear about the values people hold is usually more revealing about the place they occupy on the spectrum than simply knowing what policy changes they advocate.” (15). I think this holds to be very true; people should examine the values they hold before blindly following a leader for a particular policy they support. The chapter goes on to discuss the more specific aspects of each group. I thought Baradat really explained each group effectively because he explained the origins, key beliefs, and differences in relation to other groups. He also used modern day examples that most readers are familiar with. These approaches were very effective in helping me better understand each party.
Some statements Baradat made I disagreed with. For example his statement “violence is used y people at practically every point on the political system’ (18), was a statement I thought supported radical ideas too much. True, warfare is an example of violence, and is used by pretty much any party. But there is a difference between warfare which is fought for a reasonable cause, and radical violent uprisings, which are usually on a smaller scale for a lesser cause. This difference is one Baradat fails to address.
The diagrams in this packet were also interesting and helped me to understand the political spectrum better. For example the diagram on page 38 compares the British, US, and Saudi Arabian political spectrums. This was interesting in helping me not only understand US politics but to understand them in relation to that of other nations.
Overall, I thought Baradat had many good ideas that were effectively conveyed in his writings. They helped me to understand politics in general more, but also to more deeply analyze my views and to discover the roots of my opinions.
Historical analyses have gained a notorious reputation for being dry, incomprehensible, and needlessly superfluous. When one stumbles upon a piece of literature that breaks these conventions the reader is, needless to say, receptive. The first few chapters of Baradat’s Political Ideologies have proven to be textbook material in a better written and thought out form. Its explanation of the evolution of political thought and description of political ideologies provides insight on political ideologies in a manner applicable to modern day politics. In the study of history, students are often apt to question the purpose of their studies outside of the classroom. Baradat’s book however ties the historical foundations of political ideology to our modern day world in a manner both informative and interesting to the reader. On page 5 for example, when discussing society’s reliance on science to solve their problems, Baradat refers to examples the reader can relate to such as an increase in mobility due to automobiles yet a proportional increase in air pollution. Much of the effectiveness of Baradat’s Political Ideologies is due to the straight forward and clear writing style he chooses to employ. Before each chapter, Baradat provides a brief summary of what the reader has to look forward too in the following pages. Both concise and informative, these summaries provide an excellent segway into the rest of the chapter. Throughout the chapter itself, Baradat sticks to a clear purpose of either defining a term or explaining a concept, making life for the reader that much easier. He draws his five part definition of ideology and his definitions of radical, liberal, moderate, and conservative viewpoints in a clearly, unlike other sources that leave more unanswered than answered. In addition to the clear core of the chapter, Baradat also employs footnotes and graphs to clarify what he could not within the context of the chapter. Baradat additionally offers varying viewpoints regarding the subject matter he writes about, remaining relatively unbiased throughout the first few chapters. Whenever a strong standpoint is introduced, it is in reference to a researched source. Baradat’s purpose appears to be to educate rather than persuade, allowing him to use a wide range of references from Thomas Jefferson to Karl Marx. On page six of his book, Baradat can be quoted as saying, “Indeed, political scientist cannot agree on whether ideology is a positive, negative, or neutral feature of modern society. While I have no hope of settling this controversy here, I do wish to discuss the origins of the term, explain the varying definitions of the word, and arrive at a definition that will be useful to us during the rest of this study.” He encourages the reader to be on guard toward society’s general bias towards progress on page 16, and violence as merely extremely venue of expression on page 18. He states on page 26 when discussing two opposing sides to an issue that “both of these are powerful arguments, and indeed, the way you come down on this issue will go a long way toward determining where you might find yourself on the spectrum” inferring an objective presentation of the subject matter (26). His equal use of support coming from all spectrums of society creates a relatively unbiased piece of literature. Despite his attempt to remain objective however, it is clear to the reader that Baradat falls toward the left side of the spectrum through his sarcastic undertones. On page 25 he is cited as saying, “Conservatives have less faith than liberals that people can use reason to restrain their animalistic impulses and their emotions; they mistrust human nature.” One can’t help but take note of his sarcasm in the use of words such as “animalistic.” Another example occurs when discussing the variations between the emphasis of property between liberals and conservatives. Baradat introduces a case scenario in which a person refuses to sell a piece of property to an African American. He states that liberals are more concerned with human rights whereas conservatives are more concerned with the rights to property. He is then quoted as saying, “the property right obviously supersedes the human right” with an implied sarcastic undertone. Though everyone is subject to an opinion, his sarcastic undertones take away from the purpose of providing an objective piece of literature. Though slightly biased, the points brought up in Baradat’s writing are original and thought provoking. Throughout the first two chapters, he draws interesting connections between people such as Thomas Jefferson and Karl Marx. He states that theoretical differences and individual focuses aside, these two noted men drew documents with similar ideological statements. Baradat also brings up an interesting argument of the wording in the Declaration of Independence regarding the wording of “life, liberty, and property” in place of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” Though Baradat’s writing is slightly outdated, notably when he says, “We currently find ourselves in an era in which the youth tend to be more conservative than any other age group,” the vast majority of his Political Ideologies is well written and effective literature.
Baradat’s first chapters in his book Political Ideologies provide a comprehensive analysis of what a political ideology truly is as well as the spectrum of certain basic political concepts. My first impression of Baradat is that he is an educated man who can simply state things in his book so that it is easy for the common person to understand what our political system is based on and how we determine where one may fall on the political spectrum. I am a person that doesn’t really understand politics, but by reading these selected chapters it became easier for me to understand the political concepts of our modern day world. Baradat also used both modern day examples as well as events that happened in the past, to help the reader comprehend what he was talking about with either political ideologies or political concepts. In his first chapter, Ideology, Baradat states that political ideologies have been defined with various definitions which are often debated. Baradat then goes on to state various definitions by several academics to show the variety in the definitions, but he provides a five-point generic definition of what an ideology is to help simplify this abstract idea. He also goes on to talk about how economic and social circumstances set up the political ideologies, which help as well in his description of what an ideology is. In chapter two, The Spectrum of Political attitudes, Baradat describes a political spectrum which ranges from the political concepts of a radical all the way to that of a reactionary. Throughout the chapter he describes the values, view of change, and methods of each political concept. Baradat also gives a survey of great thinkers that fall on all parts of the spectrum, such as Karl Marx, Benitio Mussolini, Martin Luther King Jr., Ronald Regan, Richard Nixon, and many more. It was particularly evident in this chapter that the author, while trying to remain neutral, was leaning more to the left side of the political spectrum by evidence shown in his writing. For example he describes conservatives as not caring about human equality, and that they have “less faith than liberals” and that they have “animalistic impulses”. I view these comments as putting liberals in a better light than conservatives, thus giving him a bias towards the left side of the spectrum. Although he was somewhat biased, I feel that he did a wonderful job in describing the political concepts and what values are included in each. Baradat also states that you may not be completely on one section of the spectrum but have various values which fall into different ranges of the spectrum, but you will most likely fall onto one section with the majority of your values. Baradat’s chapters also related to what we are learning in our European history class right now, for the founders of ‘classical liberals’ (John Locke) and conservatism (Edmund Burke) who were figures in the Age of Enlightenment. Also the belief that ‘people could improve their condition by taking positive action instead of passively accepting life as it came’ came from the Age of Enlightenment, and made Ideologies necessary. Overall Baradat provide a piece of literature that allowed for easy understanding of ideologies and the political spectrum, which our poltical system is based on.
So far after reading the first forty pages of Baradat I was impressed with his writing. There were many different aspects of his writing which I found to make it interesting to read allowing it to hold my attention. One thing that I liked was how he did not give an exact definition for the word “Ideology”. Instead he listed the five different circumstances the word is used under and describes each of them. He mentions how the term of the word is frequently debated as it could represent a number of different ideas. I also liked how he gave background on the word, such as when it was first used by Antoine Louis Claude Destutt de Tracy to mean “the study of the process of forming ideas, a ‘science of ideas’” (Baradat 7). He then goes on to mention on Karl Marx and Friedrich Engles who stated that “the dominate political ideas, or ideology of any society would always reflect the interests of the ruling class” (Baradat 7). After telling the reader about the origin of the word, Baradat then goes on to tell the reader how it is used today in the variety of different ways. I liked how he said all the different ways that it is used because it was able to show you how diverse it is and how people interpret it in different ways. This forces the reader to really think about what it is the word truly means seeing as he does not come right out and say what the definition for ideology really is. Some people may find this to be annoying but I actually liked it. This really did force me to look back at what he was saying and really think about what I was reading, causing me to understand it more. Another thing that I really liked about how Baradat wrote was the break down he did of the different Political Attitudes. Baradat did a nice job of outlining the chapter on Spectrum of Political Attitudes so that it made sense. First he discussed what the political spectrum was with diagrams of it. This was useful to be able to visualize what it was that he was describing. Also he mentioned how the different groups fell into place. He then went on to describe each political attitude in great detail. He first stated the definition of what that political attitude believed in and did not believe in. He then went on to give examples about the party. I found this to be very useful and effective. I felt that it was able to give the reader a completely understanding of the idea and also to be able to see how people act on it and why people might agree or disagree with it. It was also nice to see what each group thought of the “status quo” and how the opinions it change. He also described everything in terms that were easy to understand. I personally liked this because usually when I read articles about politics if it does not state its ideas in a very direct matter I tend to loss interest. However, this was not the case when I was reading Baradat. I really enjoyed his style of writing, and found it very easy to focus on and understand the points and ideas that he was trying to get across. I look forward to reading the other chapters and seeing what else he has to say.
Although I believe Baradat’s first chapter regarding ideologies to be very interesting, I strongly disagreed with many statements made during the second chapter about the political spectrum. His spectrum attempts to represent the desire for change, however a spectrum portraying that would end with conservatives, as the extreme conservatives are the most content with the current status. Reactionaries are not content with current society as they lay to the right of the status quo, they in fact wish for change, as would a liberal or radical, but rather in the opposite direction. This spectrum can serve its basic purpose, but I believe that Baradat’s examinations of each attitude would have brought him to a more detailed spectrum. Conservatives and reactionaries are placed next to each other on the spectrum, however they have very little in common. An extreme liberal can be described as a radical, but an extreme conservative cannot be described as a reactionary. A conservative wants little change to society, while reactionaries push for change. In these terms, radicals and reactionaries seem to have more in common. His second spectrum seems to be more accurate; it splits the spectrum down the middle with the status quo, places progressive change (radicals, liberals, moderates, and conservatives) to the left, and retrogressive change to the right with a detailed description of each level of a reactionary. The first spectrum did not illustrate that a conservative lies on the progressive side, rather it showed it on the retrogressive side. I also disagreed with Baradat’s explanation of a conservative, as his bias pushed towards the liberals. Historically, a conservative could have been described as mainly religion-based, but he does not take into account, as he does with his explanation of liberals, the change that has occurred to the conservatives as a whole. Those who are religious may be conservatives, however those who are conservatives may not necessarily be religious. Rather, it can be argued that the reactionary attitude tends to be more religious. Reactionaries wish for society to move backwards, to revert to the old ways of society. Religion was historically one of the most important aspects in society, so it only seems logical that a reactionary would be religious. The belief that conservatives are religious can then be tied to the inaccuracy of the political spectrum, which too closely relates a conservative and a reactionary.
After reading the first 42 or so pages of Baradat’s Political Ideologies I’ve found the material to be rather logical and interesting. The concepts and ideas behind political science have always been of interest for me, and I feel that Baradat does a sound job in explaining ideology in his first chapter, as well as the differences between the five levels of the political spectrum. The information is written in such a manner that makes it relatively easy to comprehend, not to mention that it flows quite fluently. I especially found the examples Baradat provided to explain the differences between the different political factions to aid greatly in developing a clear picture of each political ideology.
I especially found Baradat’s analysis at the beginning of his first chapter to be very insightful. Baradat, I felt, makes many excellent points on the development of human society, how as we have developed, grown, and come closer we have actually been moving further and further apart. It was interesting to read on how Baradat feels that our economic expansion and development has led to increasing social problems, and a new-age form of slavery, making specific reference to how “the world is becoming increasingly materialistic, decreasingly spiritualistic (5).” In essence, Baradat makes the argument that the world is developing at too quick a rate, and this development is causing the world’s problems to be harder to handle. He also makes the case that because development is increasing at the rapid rate that it is, values have begun to change. Our society is driven toward instant satisfaction and industry, always pushing forward, trying to develop itself ever more. We’re losing touch with each other, and to an extent, ourselves.
Baradat’s description and explanation of ideology itself is well done in my opinion. Baradat took a somewhat vague term and was able to classify it into five general definitions, each of which aids the reader in coming to understand just what scope is covered by it. I was especially interested in Baradat’s comparison between ideology and philosophy, though I disagree with some points he makes in this section of his book. I agree on the fact that philosophy is more profound and introspective than ideology, but I do not agree that ideology and philosophy do not have a great connection. What one believes philosophically will have an impact upon what their ideological beliefs are. I feel that Noah’s statement that ideology is almost a smaller, dummed down version of philosophy is an accurate interpretation.
Chapter two of this book, I felt, was an excellent source of information in regards to political change. The manner in which the information was presented was very easy to comprehend; even one who had never known the differences between the levels of the political spectrum would be able to gain an understanding of them. The examples presented are especially useful in understanding the concepts discussed. I also found that the charts provided, especially the chart on the final page of chapter two, greatly aided in developing an understanding of what was being said. While reading, I noticed that Beredat went into great detail to explain the differences between liberals and conservatives. I overall agree with the definitions and explanations Beredat provided to explain each level of the political spectrum.
I’ve found myself to greatly enjoy the ideas and topics discussed in this book. The topic itself interests me, and the fact that the information is simply presented and thoroughly explained makes it a relatively easy read. I hope that these facts stand for the continuation of the packet.
Baradat provides an inclusive examination on what the term ideology means as well as providing views on the political spectrum. I personally found the Baradat reading extremely interesting. My first impression of the readings was that the readings explained everything well and made complex ideas it easy to understand. In the first two chapters he used examples that connected present day events and issues to the past. I thought that was a good idea to do because it made the points he was making clearer. In the first chapter, Ideology, I though he made good points, however, I think they could have been made more succinctly. His whole point in chapter one was to point out what an ideology was. He showed in many ways what makes up an ideology and define what it was. However I felt like it was too much though to clearly define the term. That might have been his point, to show how an ideology is not an exact thing that can be clearly defined but it did make it a bit harder to understand what point he was trying to make about the ideology because of how much information was in the chapter. I did like however, his writing style, it really held my attention and made it easy to read. I also liked the connections that he made between the Declaration of Independence and the Communist Manifesto. Baradat shows how the two are very similar. I thought it was a good and interesting point to make which really made me understand what he was trying to prove. In the second chapter, The Spectrum of Political Attitudes, I though Baradat did an excellent job explaining the political spectrum. Though I am one more involved in politics than most it was a clear explanation of the differences and similarities. I also thought that the use of the diagram as a visual representation of what he was trying to explain was very helpful to the reader. In this chapter one thing that I found slightly odd was that there seemed to be a bias in the writing. When trying to talk about liberals versus conservatives on pg. 25, Baradat seems to be biased against conservatives. I also found on pg. 30 where he says, “ The change itself is not important; what is significant in the anticipated result”. I found this point a very interesting one. It made a lot of sense that that would be what people fear. The fear is of what will happen not how it will happen. Chapter 2 was also very interesting to me because Baradat used examples from present day as well as the past. The connection made it easy for me to understand something I probably wouldn’t have. I love the fact that he could explain it that way and connect it to what has happened as well as what is happening now with out economy and political system. On page 35 it says, “economic pressures are the primary motivation fro choosing a particular political position.” That is pretty much what is happening today in our society with the economic crisis so I thought that was mildly interesting to see that said when it is playing out in front of us as we speak. Overall I thought this reading was extremely interesting and helped me better understand the point that I might have not normally understood so well. Baradat made his points clear and used examples that helped to keep my attention and help me understand what could have been a hard reading to comprehend. In essence this was a good reading and a well written one at that.
Usually, when I think of political literature, I call to mind long, tedious textbooks rendered nearly unreadable by their dryness and academic language. Therefore, it startled me to find that Baradat’s Political Ideologies is utterly readable. The language that Baradat employs is simple and modern; his ideas are concise and to the point. Even more surprisingly, I found the content of the book to be quite engaging.
For instance, I found Baradat’s explanation of the origin of ideology fascinating. It was truly interesting to consider the historical factors that resulted in our modern system of politics. I also found his definition of ideology to be interesting, accurate, and insightful. Although I had absorbed its general meaning from the media and my previous experiences with history, I had never had the exact meaning of “ideology” explained to me before. Baradat’s five part definition gave a concrete form to my previously vague idea of what an ideology was. It was also interesting to learn the difference between an ideology and a philosophy. Before, I had used the terms interchangeably. However, the book made me see the subtle differences between the two.
I also liked Baradat’s description of the “left to right” political spectrum. His descriptions of radicals, liberals, conservatives, and reactionaries made me think about the political spectrum in a way that I had never considered before. I especially found interesting Baradat’s assertion that liberals take a more optimistic view of humanity, while conservatives take a more cynical view. Although I do not completely agree (I know liberals who are quite cynical about human nature), it truly made me think about how one’s view of the world influences one’s political leaning. I also found Baradat’s point that the political spectrum means different things for different governments to be quite insightful. Too often, we assume that our political norms are the same for other countries, an assumption that impedes our understanding of the world.
Baradat was quite successful in creating an interesting and informative description of political ideology. Many of his ideas piqued my interest, which is notable given my previous boredom with political science. I look forward to reading more of his work.
Michael Saxton After reading the first two chapters of Baradat’s “Political Ideologies,” I have found his attempt to define ideology and his characterization of each of the five different political attitudes to be both interesting and accurate. The reason that I find his definition of ideology accurate is because of his inclusion of other’s definitions of the term. In the first chapter of his book, Baradat contrasts Antoine Louis Claude Destutt de Tracy’s definition to the classification of ideology by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. While Tracy believed that ideology implied observing the physical environment to form ideas, Marx and Friedrich believed that ideology was used by a powerful group of people to maintain power in a country. Although Baradat includes different opinions of the exact definition of the word ideology, Baradat believes that there are five criteria of ideology that many historians agree upon. In his introduction, Baradat states that ideologies are often simplistic, used to refer to political situations, include a plan for a future, are directed towards a large group of people, and have goal-driven plans for how to improve the lives of others (1). After much consideration, it has been determined that this definition of ideology is the most accurate. In looking at events in the past, it can be determined that one could use at least a few of Baradat’s criteria to prove that something occurred because of ideology. For example, in looking at how the Crusades were instigated, one could see that the Church had a big role in persuading knights to go and reclaim the Holy Land. The Popes had visions of Jerusalem becoming a Christian city, and they planned to achieve this goal using military force. This is only one example that proves that Baradat’s description of ideology is accurate. In the second chapter of his book, Baradat attempts to define each of the five political attitudes, which are Radical, Liberal, Moderate, Conservative, and Reactionary. Using sophisticated organization, Baradat divides his second chapter into multiple sections, five of which are used to explain what people in each of the five political attitudes believe in. Speaking in general terms, Baradat describes Radicals and Liberals as people who want an immediate progressive change in government. However, he points out that Radicals are more likely to break laws to achieve their ends while Liberals usually try to reform the system. Baradat describes Moderates as people who see some flaws in the current governmental structure, but prefer gradual instead of abrupt change. Baradat additionally describes Conservatives as people who enjoy the current political system and are reluctant to see any type of alteration in the system. Reactionaries are described in Baradat’s second chapter as being people who prefer retrogressive change (20-28). Baradat makes claims that although people may be Liberal, they may agree with Conservatives and disagree with other Liberals on certain issues and policies. Baradat uses the example of abortion to explain that while some Liberals would oppose abortion because it is unfair to the fetus, while other Liberals argue that not allowing women the option to abort goes against individual liberties (30-31). Baradat also discusses that individual’s opinions on issues cannot be classified as either Liberal or Conservative because what is considered Liberal or Conservative is different depending on the country. Baradat points out that on the issue of strikes, people in England who are pro-strikes would be considered Conservative while people in Saudi Arabia with the exact same viewpoint would be considered extremely Liberal (37). After reading the first two chapters of his book, it has been determined that Baradat’s ideas have little if any folly. His book includes strong pieces of evidence that can be used to prove the validity of his arguments. Additionally, if one were to look at specific events in history, one would see that his definitions of certain terms fit the said event in question.
I thought that Baradat’s Political Ideologies was a good read. It helped explain origins and histories of terms used, and also explained what those terms really meant, helping abolish any myth one might have on any of those terms. The first chapter on the origin of the word ideology and also what it means was very informative. I thought it was interesting to see how so many people had similar and different views on what an ideology was, and I think that that what he defined as being an ideology based on similarities between other figures was good for all intents and purposes. It definitely seems accurate when reading though what Fredrick Watkins, David Ingersoll, and others thought about the meaning of and also how to define an ideology. I also was pleased when reading through the different ends of the political spectrum, because it was presented well and also was very insightful. The examples provided on major historic figures such as Martin Luther King Jr. that could represent these categories made it easier to understand what the political spectrum’s separations were and also the definitions and differences between liberals, radicals, and so on. The only thing that really should have been clarified was when Baradat was talking about how conservatives were more likely to be law abiding citizens and so on. It should be stated that more factors exist to being patriotic and law abiding than just some political views that someone falls into. Things like the ‘feel good’ factor, and also morals come into play when people decide what they should and shouldn’t do, and frankly I don’t believe that it has so much to do with being a conservative or liberal as much as was suggested. It also was wrong to suggest that liberals would be any less patriotic than conservatives. Liberals would be, in my view, happy that such a system as their countries’ exists that would allow them to try and change the laws peacefully and successfully, and with a fair chance. I wouldn’t be less patriotic if I were a liberal or a conservative. It feels as if he didn’t try and take into account the humanity factor when trying to generalize in some instances. As for the talk on philosophies, I thought it was mostly well organized, and in particular something I found interesting was the political spectrums’ that compared US, British, and Saudi Arabian politics. I found it interesting that Saudi Arabia was so radical, it seems as if to strengthen my views on how the ignorance of some geographic regions makes them fanatical, but now is not the time to discuss that, maybe in class I could explain better.
When studying a piece that focus's on political ideologies, it is frequently difficult to find writing that is both informational and not inherently dry. Baradat, I believe, has found the medium between too simplistic and unnecessarily difficult, leaving his work interesting, while still letting the reader attain valuable knowledge on his subject. The first few chapters of his Political Ideologies gives the reader background information on how the term ideology came about, and why it is such an important term, even if it is somewhat controversial. For example, without this background knowledge of the Industrial Revolution, it would be hard to comprehend his point that as it progressed, American civilization was ripped farther and farther from its roots. He went on to mention that the increasing machines were a prominent reason for the separation between boss and worker. That information truly demonstrates how and why ideology is important, for these drastic shifts in the social structure of the work place completely undermined any political ideologies that were currently there, and replaced them altogether with new beliefs. His next section was used to give more background information on political ideologies and who believed in which scenario. This was a useful way to learn more about the contradicting definitions, as it was clearly illustrated for the reader the various ideas on ideologies meaning. Without this section, readers would of been less informed on perhaps, what a political ideology even was, so it is my opinion that Baradat did a good job in providing, again, enough background information for the reader to truly comprehend what his main focus is about. Finally, as Baradat comes to his descriptions of Conservatism, Liberalism, Radicalism and Reactionaryism, it is my opinion that he does a good job comparing and contrasting each of these with each other to show how they compare and how they contrast, giving the reader a better basic understanding of their relation to one another. I, however, did not agree with all of his opinion, but refuse to let that be a reason to dislike his piece, for they are of his opinion and he supports his argument well. I appreciated his inclusion of the use of money from each group, for it really distinguished the differences in their beliefs in what should receive funding. For example, Baradat mentions that, "As a general rule...liberals will spend more on domestic programs than will conservatives. This...also pertains to foreign policy." I found this a helpful tool in his comparison of each political attitude, for it showed what they focus on, which in turn shows the reader what kind of policies you should expect from each group, which goes on to truly educate the reader about the subject matter. Overall, I believed Baradat's work should be a prominently taught article when on the subject of Political Ideologies for it definitely gives the reader the education needed to understand the matter fully. Its wonderful use of background knowledge truly prepares the reader for his ideas, making it utterly impossible for his meaning and purpose to be lost, which in my mind makes for the very best kind of author. All in all, I thought it was a solid article on very interesting subject matter.
The Baradat article we read was very interesting and gave me a new understanding on how politics work. First off I really don’t follow politics so this article really gave me an interesting perspective on how politics, and political philosophies and ideologies are classified. The writing style of this article also surprised me in the fact that it was easy to read and to become interested about what you were reading. I don’t read much about politics because at times even the most interesting topics can start to drone due to the way the literature is written. As I am now starting to overcome that and enjoy the articles, this article was like a breath of fresh air and really got me thinking about the way I view and where I stand in politics. The first chapter on ideologies was a new view since I had always assumed that the political philosophies mirrored normal philosophies but it was pointed out that they were different. The subtle difference between the two is not often pointed out but it makes an important difference since normal philosophies are more profound. I don’t agree with how different he makes the two ideas seem as they both spawn from the same point, the view of someone on how everyone should live their lives. In fact, most political ideologies are supported by a personal philosophy that the person believes in, and while he does point out what he believes the difference between the two are, he contradicts himself at points. He states that ideologies and philosophies differ by pointing out that ideologies are pointed at the masses while philosophies are pointed at both the masses and individuals. While this may be true, an ideology can be followed by just one person since a certain person may follow a certain political view, his take on the ideology’s standpoint can completely differ from those who might follow the same thing. A point that Baradat concentrated on that I thought was very fascinating and important was the formation of empirical learning and how that affected politics from that point onward. Many people now can’t comprehend how our learning style used to be based on metaphysical statements rather than the seemingly obvious way of learning through experience. Baradat’s point on how that introduced the materialism and the want for improvement into politics was truly intriguing in the fact that it was pretty much a turning point for modern politics. The second chapter which talked about political attitudes and a way to look at them by putting on a political spectrum was something I had never read about before so it was an entirely new insight to me. One of the most profound parts of the spectrum was the fact that its organization was based upon the current status quo instead of set issues. This way might in fact be commonplace but as I had said before I don’t follow politics to a large extent so this was new in comparison to the constant times I had heard people classify political views and attitudes based upon the issues that mattered then. This spectrum shows the absolutely astounding ability of politics to change since its simplicity shows the amount of possibilities present. The article also includes spectrum examples that had been altered to show even more information like progressive to retrogressive change. The fact that the political spectrum can be used for any government to show how the same event is viewed in various terms is also very handy. For example when Baradat uses the example of labor strikes as an issue and plots where it would lie depending on the status quo of the nation makes for an intriguing comparison due to how much more leniency is taken in Great Britain when looking at strikes in comparison to how they are treated in Saudi Arabia. The organization of political attitudes based upon the status quo as well, was a great idea. I also like how his explanation of the attitudes was broad and he clarified about reasons why a person might fall into a specific attitude. As a person used to dealing with political parties created by issues this was an enlightening read. Overall despite a few disagreements with the article, it is not only informative about a very broad topic, it is captivating and well written on a topic known for being boring. It is a book like this that I would recommend to anyone interested in learning about political structure.
After reading the Baradat article, I feel somewhat more knowledgeable about political science. I thought it was kind of dry, but was somewhat more readable and engaging than the average text on political science. I thought it provided a thorough dissertation of a a couple of vitally important topics: ideologies and the spectrum of political attitudes. In the first chapter, the selction discussed ideologies. It raised the key point that every modern political system attempts to mobilize its people to achieve goals that are important to it. To do this, they employ ideologies as a tool to accomplish this mobilization. Baradat then proceeds to discuss the source of ideology, then defines it. He does not provide his own opinion, but instead cites the definitions of a prestigious lineup of political scientists. These include such names as Antoine Louis Claude Destutt de Tracy, who coined the term, Karl Marx, Frederick Watkins, L.T. Sargent, Terrence Ball, and several others. While this provided a wider idea of the many different interpretations of the term that helped my understanding, I would have liked it better if a comprehensive overall definition had been provided to sum it up and give me a more exact idea of what it meant. Being presented with such a wide array of ideas did help give me an idea of how wide-ranging its meanings are, but it also left me a bit confused and wondering what I should take as an exact definition. I don't want to pick and choose; instead, i would rather have one definition that left me certain of the meaning. Also in this chapter, Baradat talks about the source of ideology, providing a solid analysis of its place in the modern world and how it has changed over the centuries. I was impressed with his deep yet succinct analysis and felt that I learned a lot from it. However, I had one issue. I thought that Baradat would have been better served by diving right into the definition, before he talked about the term in depth. While I was reading it, I felt my understanding suffered a little because I was not entirely clear on the meaning of the term yet. It generally helps, before you talk about a topic, to first explain what it is that you will be talking about. Nevertheless, I thought that the first chapter was quite informative. I thought the second chapter was also interesting, although it got a little boring as it went along and probably should have been more succinct. I thought the most important part was the discussion on the spectrum of political attitudes. I thought Baradat did an excellent job of explaining the characteristics of each attitude and how they all related. I especially liked how he incorporated diagrams to illustrate these relationships. Baradat goes into extensive detail about each of the five positions: radical, liberal, moderate, conservative, and reactionary, and after explaining the overal spectrum, covers each one individually with detail. He doesn't stop there either, discussing specific issues and views of the different groups. He mostly discusses the different policies, like domestic and foreign policy, for each group. An example of this is the example of supply-side economics. That attention to detail is something I really liked about this section. I came out of it understanding it very well, even more so than I did after we discussed it in class. In summary, Baradat does a very effective job in this article of breaking down the theory of ideologies and the political spectrum. I learned a lot from reading this article, and even though it was kind of dry and not really what I'm interested in, it was readable. There are some things I did not like about it, of course, but overall, I thought it was a well-written, educational article.
While it is indeed possess of various interesting propositions and pieces of information, my feelings with respect to Baradat’s evaluations of ideology and politics are ultimately quite mixed.
Baradat makes a variety of interesting statements and comparisons in his assessment of ideology. Baradat makes a very compelling argument as to the nature and properties of modern ideologies- his conception of ideology as a specific and unique product of the particular conditions of the Western world at the point of the Enlightenment (with all of the tumult, spiritual and social uncertainty, revolutions in thought and belief, etc. associated with aforementioned period) and beyond is certainly well-reasoned and explained, although I do not entirely agree with all of his claims and assumptions. Most notable of this would be his absolute division of ideology from philosophy and other previous religious and secular thought- I, on the other hand, perceive the attributes and functions of “ideology” as things that have naturally recurred throughout the history of civilization. Perceptions and sets of beliefs describing how society and government may best be designed and operated have, after all, existed since the dawn of civilization, and have been composed and promoted throughout the lives of countless individuals, societies, and institutions, eastern and western, classical and modern, religious and secular. The idea that “people can take active steps that will improve their lives”, that society might improved by such actions, or that an ideal form of society or government may be attained or aspired is fundamental to innumerable different beliefs and practices (some perhaps being more abstract and detached than others), such as the theories of Plato and other classical philosophers, the ideas of Confucius, the precepts and teachings of the Catholic Church. To classify “ideology” as some novel western phenomena seems preposterous to me- yes, there are obviously particular elements that tend to be common to the political philosophies that emerged as a result of and following the Enlightenment, but I hardly see the justification for defining so general and prevalent a term so specifically and arbitrarily. I also find his reference to the views of “Americans” as depending more upon practical results than ideological beliefs and precedents as rather bizarre. After all, if this were the case, why would arguments pertaining to the sanctity of marriage, the constitution, human life, the “morality” of regulating or “infringing” upon private enterprise, property, and wealth etc. play such significant roles in modern political rhetoric and thought? Why do people care about the ideological or moral implications of “socialism” or “gay marriage” or any number of other topics rather than focusing primarily upon the logical potential applications, historical consequences, etc. of such matters? Baradat’s evaluation of the various modern conceptions and definitions of philosophy, such as Frederick Watkins and L.T. Sargent, provide valuable insights into the manner in which the concept of an ideology may be classified and applied as well as the means by which Baradat appears to have derived the five-fold definition that he promotes within his work. Likewise are his various descriptions of the beliefs of numerous different modern political thinkers, such as Karl Marx, Thomas Jefferson, and Karl Mannheim highly enlightening and interesting, as are the parallels he raises between their works and ideas (most notably between the ideas expounded upon by the Declaration of Independence and their relationship with those that Marx focuses on in the Communist Manifesto). Ultimately, Baradat’s views and evaluations of ideology provide some interesting, if sometimes peculiar, perspectives on a very important and fundamental concept. Baradat’s bizarre treatise on the political spectrum, on the other hand, can be summed up in its entirety as, to quote a piece of commentary on a component of this section of Baradat’s work, “complete crap”. The introduction to this section was all that was ever necessary, and Baradat’s ensuing attempts to elaborate simply serve to adulterate his meaning and debase his entire work. Baradat initiates his work by establishing the fundamental definitions of each of the various general political categories addressed. Liberals seek significant progressive change, Radicals desire extreme change that conflicts considerably with the status quo, conservatives seek to slowly revise and fundamentally preserve the current order, reactionaries pursue regressionary policies, etc. His subsequent examples are useless and irrelevant in the extreme. This is because the entire spectrum is absolutely relative. One cannot reasonably make the broad assertion that conservatives are paranoid irrationalists or liberals idealistic rationalists. One cannot claim that fascism is fundamentally to the right and communism to the left. These may be true in context of specific groups and political systems in particular countries, but the actual definition of each group, as established by Baradat himself, merely describe how the views and ambitions of the relevant group or ideology relates to the established status quo of a given society. While Baradat’s periodic references to American politics only this serve to warp the reader’s conception of the political scale by cementing American standards, definitions, and states, which are by no means universally true and applicable. In the Russian Federation (or most of the former USSR or Eastern Bloc), for instance, traditional communists would constitute reactionaries, whereas groups that support the implementation of permutations of communism or socialism radically different from the old soviet implementation would constitute liberals or reactionaries. Likewise, those who seek to mesh fascist ideology with political tradition in an attempt to reconstruct the earlier political hegemonies and power of a country would constitute reactionaries, whereas others that are proponents of fascist Orwellian police states that would comprise absolute departures from any previously established mode of political practice or thought in that country, would be logically classified as radicals. Baradat attributes an emphasis on human rights to liberals and liberal practices, but is not acceptance of such rights an element of the social and political status quo in most industrialized nations? Does not their defense and development constitute conservatism? Baradat, in essence, serves to define two absolutely conflicting perceptions of the political spectrum- one dependent simply upon the relationship of a given ideology to the status quo, and the other upon certain specific historical definitions and precedents for a given category. In addition to this, Baradat makes some rather preposterous assertions as to the nature of conservatives and liberals. For instance, he asserts that liberals are “rationalists” that believe in the tendency of humans to seek what is best and serve high principles, whereas Conservatives are generally “Irrationalists” that are highly pessimistic about human nature. This is a bizarre and ludicrous claim to make. After all, defense of the status quo and attempts to prevent rapid alteration can be, and, indeed, often are, borne out of a belief that the current system is the most logical and practical, or that revisions to it must be carefully evaluated through human reason so as to prevent politically and socially insalubrious disruption of the system through overly idealistic or irrational propositions. Likewise, a liberal might be very pessimistic about human nature and tendencies- the reforms proposed by such a party would be attempts to best mould the role of the government to compensate for this fact, to restrain negative human propensities, or to better human life as much as possible while keeping this fact into consideration. Indeed, it can be argued that this itself is present in modern American society- is not the purpose of restrictions on big business, firearm ownership, etc. to limit the capacity of individuals and groups, motivated by base human greed and malice, to harm society as a whole? And is not the American conservative belief in the value of laissez-faire economics, of the capacity of the people to decide for themselves, to exercise a great deal of individual freedom and independence from the government, etc. dependent upon a belief that humans are naturally capable of and inclined to do what is right for society? Even if this is not the case, his definition cannot at all be applied universally to all extant and possible conservative and liberal groups in all societies- such things will, as he himself illustrated with his comparison of Great Britain, Saudi Arabia, and the United States, vary enormously and are entirely dependent upon the society considered. Any deeper attempts to generally describe the essential properties and associated ideologies of “liberals” or “conservatives” or “reactionaries” are pointless and intellectually repugnant. Indeed, even placed purely in context of the United States, there exist so many permutations of “liberal” and “conservative” and so many entities that do not necessarily fit into the traditional definition of either, that Baradat’s definitions are found significantly wanting. In short, not only is Baradat’s assessment of the political spectrum riddled with flaws and errors, but the content of the chapter is itself fundamentally irrational given the context in which it is presented (for while references to American politics abound, the chapter introduces itself not so much as a specific evaluation of matters American but rather as a general classification of essential terms and categories, in which capacity it fails spectacularly). Ultimately, Baradat’s assessments of political ideologies and attitudes, while certainly containing some very interesting pieces of information, are lacking and flawed in many, many respects. While I can bring myself to respect some of his views, others seem simply seem bizarre, irrational, and inconsistent.
Webster defines ideology as “thinking or theorizing of an idealistic, abstract, or impractical nature; fanciful speculation.” Baradat, however, would have never agreed with this strict definition of such a complex idea. I felt that this author brought up many interesting and thought-provoking points. The first point that I agreed with was when Baradat stated that a main point of ideology is that it is used to provide hope to the masses. Ideologies cannot thrive without the element of hope. It is essential that people understand how this ideology can provide more order or structure within their particular society and how it can provide a more desirable future for its citizens. One major part of Baradat’s five part definition is that “All ideologies provide an interpretation of the present and a view of a desired future. The anticipated future is usually portrayed as materially better than the present and is thought to be attainable within a single generation.” This “desirable future” is so desirable because it is thought to be able to better the lives of the people living in this society at this particular time. No one is willing to follow an ideology that does not guarantee them results within their lifetime. However, there was another major point of Baradat’s that I did not agree with. The section that discussed the beliefs of the French noble and scholar, Antoine Louis Claude Destutt de Tracy stated that supernatural or spiritual phenomena plays no part in the formation of ideas. I strongly disagree with this statement because these unearthly beliefs can be some of the largest influences within a person’s life. It is impossible to say that empirical learning is the only factor that will ultimately lead to formations of ideologies. Societies do not always entirely base this “desirable future” solely upon social and political conditions; many elements play a very important role in ideologies. It was also extremely interesting how Baradat compared philosophy with ideology. All of the characteristics that he mentioned were extremely accurate. One of the most important differences that Baradat presented was that philosophies encourage introspection whereas ideologies do not. Ideologists do not typically encourage their followers to analyze their theories or viewpoints. Philosophers, however, are the ones that frequently push their followers to observe their own feelings and viewpoints and to act upon these emotions. Overall, I truly enjoyed reading this Baradat article and it presented a wide range of interesting viewpoints that were incredibly accurate and significant.
I was quite intrigued by Baradat's explanation of ideologies and politics. As I am not a person who tends to debate the topic of politics, it was interesting to see how each political standpoint was explained. I believe that Baradat is a thought provoking writer, where he supports his views of political society with examples from the past and present, which makes it easier for the reader to comprehend what points he is making about each political group. His writing educates and provokes the mind into thought over what political views the reader might have based on controversial issues. The evidence used to show examples of a liberal v. conservative view, or conservative v. conservative, etc., truly helps comprehend what standpoint each side takes and what characteristics of that standpoint cause it to belong to a political view. I was very intrigued by Baradat's writing style, as I could compare my own opinions on how should the issues of abortion or the national economy be handled, and how each contrasting politcal group would handle it. The first chapter, as a discussion on the origin and history of ideologies, was interesting to say the least. I believe Baradat explained what an ideology is well, as he can provide concrete examples of ideologies throughout history. As there are many examples in history of change in society to better that society whether it be by slight change or complete reform, it can be difficult to truly explain. Baradat explains these ideologies through examples of change in society during the Enlightenment, and how ideologies called for collective efforts to create change in the world. Much of Baradat's discussion lies within his views of the spectrum of politics. Ranging from radical to reactionary, he provides a detailed explanation of how each group wants to change the status quo, if at all. Baradat first explains the radicals, and their approach to change. As this group of the political spectrum contains one of the extremes, he chooses to show how they would change society, and how drastic those changes would be. He then moves from left to right in the spectrum, proceeding to liberals, moderates, conservatives, and finally reactionaries. I personally liked his approach to explaining the moderates, as there is not truly a line separating liberals and conservatives. It is difficult to write about the moderates, as the people within this group will always sway to one side or another. Baradat really seems to want to make a series of points in his debate of liberals v. conservatives. Every issue in regards to past and current society can have a conservative and a liberal view. The question is how to distinguish between the two. One example that I thought was intriguing was how capitalism was introduced as being opposed to the old system of mercantalism, so capitalism was a liberal idea as it was a change to the status quo. In today's society, however, capitalism is the status quo, so it would be considered a conservative idea. It is interesting how Baradat can provoke thought in the reader by showing how one view is not necessarily liberal or conservative, but can interchange as time goes on and the status quo changes. Overall, I was very intrigued and impressed with Baradat's writing, as it allowed me to better understand a very debatable topic.
Baradat is an amazing author. It takes a lot of skill to be able to write about something so dry and still keep the reader’s interest. With most readings of this nature, I always feel as though I have to force myself to continue and find myself having to go back and reread paragraphs due to a lack of interest and therefore focus.
In particular, I love his organization. He constantly brings up an idea, lists details about the idea, gives examples of the idea, and links the idea to previous ideas (in that order). There is not much to say about the idea itself (it is simply the topic he must write about). However, much can be said about the presentation of details, examples, and references.
What I enjoy most about the way he presents details is how understandable they are. With many authors, the text goes into extreme detail to the point where one finds him or herself reading the same information over and over again to the point that nothing is absorbed. However, Baradat found the perfect balance between having too much detail, and not getting the message across.
I also found the choice of examples to be amazing. Using commonly known figures, such as comparing the declaration of independence to the communist manifesto or highlighting Martin Luther King and Mohandas Gandhi as radicals greatly enhanced my ability to understand what Baradat was attempting to say and my ability to relate the ideas to my own life and knowledge.
Finally, the connections between ideas allowed for an even deeper understanding of each topic. I loved how Baradat explained one topic thoroughly, explained another, and then compared them to highlight key similarities and differences between them, such as that of radicals and reactionaries. In doing so, it was much easier for me to understand exactly what he was attempting to teach.
On a side note, I also appreciated how he used different definitions from different perspectives (such as the definition of ideology from seven different perspectives) to minimize personal bias on each subject that he was talking about. He even noted to be aware of personal bias at certain points because “we” grew up with it. Such care of sticking to fact over opinion greatly emphasizes the professionalism of this author and I greatly enjoyed reading his works.
After reading Baradat’s work, I found it interesting in its completely logical way at looking at political ideology and the basis of such believes. Especially during a time when political ideologies has stratified and polarized the national government, it is essential to look at the fundamental basis of political ideology and philosophy. His definition of the political spectrum was vastly different from what I imagined it to be. Especially being in a highly political year, much of our definitions of conservatism and liberalism has been marred and misinterpreted by the media. Baradat was also able to make political talks interesting and understandable unlike the usual political talks that tend to confuse rather than inform. I was surprised to find my own beliefs in what he said about different political ideologies. What made Baradat’s work easier to understand was that he gave many examples, either from history or hypothetical examples from everyday life. I especially found the example of an African American buying a home and the discussion over property rights versus equality very interesting. It really shows the complexity of defining political positions when it comes to personal and property rights. However, I disagree with Baradat in that liberals tend to preserve personal rights and conservatives tend to preserve property rights. Baradat himself says that there is a huge difference in the beliefs of conservatives depending on the status quo. Baradat was able to distinguish and carefully explain what he believed constituted different aspects of the political spectrum as well as his perception of how ideology differs from philosophy. Personally, I never saw much of a difference between ideology and philosophy because I had always thought the two were intertwined. Baradat clearly defines ideology as well as provide examples of differences in the definition of ideology from different authors. What I found particularly interesting was his example of the Declaration of Independence and the Communist Manifesto. Though the two are extremely different and advocate for two completely different causes, they are strikingly similar. It was bizarre for me at first to see any similarity between a document that advocate for independence and a document that advocates for communism. Yet, both argue for the personal rights of people and equality and condemn the uneven distribution of power within a government. Both call for action to oppose their respective governments, but the outcome of these documents differs dramatically. Marx’s quote on page12, “The philosophers have only interpreted the world, the point is to change it” really struck me as the truly definitive difference between ideology and philosophy. While philosophy only set out to establish beliefs and interpretations of different aspects of life, ideology, which often times is influence by personal philosophy, transforms different beliefs into policies to change society and government. Lastly, what I found Baradat’s political spectrum very interesting. Though I thought the spectrum was too American in that his definition of the right and left does not really reflect the beliefs of all conservatives and liberals, I think Baradat really tried, and succeed to some extent, to clearly define the five different stages of the political spectrum in an objective and analytical way. The most interesting section, which was in turn the shortest section, was on the motivations of political position. Baradat claims that in this era, youth tend to be more conservative than any other age group. However, especially in America, there seems to be a definitively liberal generation of youth. Baradat does not answer why this is the case, and only goes on to say that fifty-year olds are more vested in the country because they have a stake in society. Yet, youth does have a stake in society and there is an increasing interest in politics among youth today because the youth are the future of this country and do have a stake in society because they are already in a part of society and will grow into a even greater role in society as they grow up. Also, I found his argument that liberals have to have a high tolerance for disorder in order to be psychologically suited for interesting. I think this is true everywhere in the world because liberals do ask to change, and change usually means disorder from the orderliness of the status quo. I think Baradat took a unique look at the motivations because most analysts would look into social and economic background of a person to deduct the political motivations. However, Baradat argues that it is the nature of a person that truly defines his or her political stance. Overall, I think Baradat was able to effectively study political ideology and was very rational in his analysis.
Political Ideology, written by Leon P. Baradat, discusses the author's dissection of ideology and describes the term in relation to social, economic, and political circumstances. In a world that continues to slowly settle down after a political frenzy like the Presidential elections, it is crucial to understand the way in which politics had come to be. Using precise language that is not too hard to comprehend, readers receive a basic lesson on the political spectrum and how society can be divided by a left-right system. The author, a renowned writer of political science, succeeds in his purpose to educate. Main points of the first two chapters can be understood without confusion. Baradat draws from parts of history and the present day to relate his presentation of today's current political ideologies to his readers. Overall, his work is insightful and informational.
Chapter 1, titled simply as "Ideology", discusses the term, its definition that seems to be ambiguous, and the sources that could give rise to a new ideology. He leads the discussion by immediately admitting that there were different definitions of ideology; even so, he states that ideology has to meet five requirements. Ideology, powerful when focused towards the masses, refers to a political set of beliefs that provide a view of the present and desired future. With ideology there comes a plan that is stated in simplistic terms to achieve a better future. With ideology there comes a plan that is stated in simplistic terms to achieve a better future. Baradat mentions names like Karl Marx and Frederick Watkins to present the varying definitions of ideology. Baradat's language is systematic where he discusses a general topic then gradually narrows his scope to more specifics. He also uses analogies. He acknowledges success in one area as a harbinger of the failure of another. For example, when discussing the sources of ideology, economic success is cited with the negative impact on society. Industrialization, though, indeed, brought wealth to the higher classes, also enlarged the gap between the wealthy and less wealthy. Fundamental change in beliefs or anything appears to confuse and irritate the people. This still applies to today. Baradat explores "ideology" from all sides and remains unbiased in his definitions. Though Political Ideologies was published in 1984, it is amazing how the term ideology is still considered ambiguous among the societies of 2008.
The clarity in Baradat's explanation on ideology can be seen as a strength. He starts first by defining the topic to be discussed. Next, he discusses the possible causes of ideologies, followed by the views from scholars. He concludes the chapter by comparing and contrasting ideology with philosophy. All of this is easy to follow; for a student, who knows nothing about political business, the work is extremely helpful in understanding.
Baradat moves on to the political spectrum in Chapter 2. Like the previous chapter, he informs the reader by systematically stating his points. He discusses the parts of the spectrum. Radicals and liberals are leftists whereas conservatives and reactionaries are rightists. His effort to separate liberals and conservations was effectively clear and so were his other descriptions. For example, he dedicates a great deal of pages starting from page 25. Though, it seems like Baradat tends to lean more towards the liberal side than conservatism. His little bit about the changing spectrum is also correct; the views of one person can change their position on the spectrum even if that same person was still the same. He later uses Reagan as an example, also proving another way in which he connects the past to the present. Diagrams that were so graciously provided by the author allows reader to go beyond processing words and let them make connections through visual aid.
However, when discussing the four things necessary to be known about policy changes, Baradat makes a statement about the use of violence. According to him, "violence is sued by people at practically every point of the political spectrum", and such violence include death penalty. Here he describes violence as physical approaches. Later on, Baradat, on page 39, tells readers that state that instead of using warfare, liberals prefer to apply reasoning to solve aggression. His previous statement was a bit of a generalization. He should have been clearer and should have given an objective definition as to not confuse some readers.
His faults are minor, and this proves that Baradat has mostly given a well written document. A person cannot spot a Liberal or a Conservative on the street by reading Baradat’s writing, but he does assist the readers by giving a better understanding of the motivations of the different political groups. Ideology is clearly a topic that Baradat is well-versed in; this was portrayed by his use of easy and fluent sentences that connected his ideas. He is sure to draw lines when discussing two commonly known concepts like ideology and philosophy. Therefore, Baradat successfully achieves his goal to educate the society by writing Political Ideologies.
felt the Baradat article was very interesting, and not as bad as I thought it would be to read. Not having a very in depth political background, it was refreshing to read something that explained the aspects of politics so easily. His spectrum of political ideology is very interesting, placing radicals on the left and reactionaries on the right. In his first chapter, he speaks in depth on the definition of ideology, and how it differs from philosophy. I enjoyed reading this because this is not something that I would typically read. He showed how ideology was used to affect the masses, using examples in the Communist Manifesto and The Declaration of Independence. It was very interesting to read how he would relate two things that you would normally never find being together in the same context. He showed how ideology was geared towards the masses, made simple so that the common reader could easily understand. He showed how the minds of Hitler and Marx were linked in the fact that they wanted to change the status quo, and set out on their quest of enforcing their political ideology. In Chapter 2, he describes in depth the political spectrum. The terms "liberal" and "conservative" are thrown about some much lately, and never knowing what they meant, I was oblivious to their meaning in a political society. Much of what is on the news today is about the conquests of these political groups over one another. Like it was said in class, it is clear that the United State’s itself is very conservative in that it does not openly house the radical and reactionary minds in its governing body. The fact that there are no members of the Communist Party in the U.S. Congress shows how the society we live in is very conservative. In reading this, it opened my eyes to many of the issues that we as Americans face today, and in choosing the right candidate to lead us on the quest. His many comparisons in his writings make it easier to relate towards what he is writing. Again, reading this piece really opened my eyes to the kind of society we live in today, and the political ideology that our country was founded on.
When I was first handed the lengthy packet and given the assignment to read the first two chapters, I immediately dreaded even beginning to read, and expected a long boring article about something that I would hardly need to know. But I was pleasantly surprised at how straightforward and interesting it was, and actually enjoyed reading while learning a great deal of information. My favorite thing about this author’s writing style was that his explanations were to the point and weren’t bogged down with extra information and unnecessary details. The points he makes about ideology as well as the different political perspectives were extremely valuable to read about. Although I had a vague idea of the political terms and the general views of the people who call themselves liberals, moderates, etc., this article was extremely helpful in giving not only understandable definitions but also in-depth examples to clarify exactly what the author was trying to explain. Giving details such as the views of Martin Luther King and Mahatma Gandhi being that of pacifists made it clearer and more interesting than just a definition of a pacifist alone. Also, Baradat included a short bit on liberalism in the enlightenment, and mentioned some historical figures of the scientific revolution, which made the article tie in to what we have been learning in class. Baradat’s information was valuable and written in such a way that made it very interesting as a reader. It included just enough details and examples to clarify the main points, yet not detract from the article’s effectiveness with excessive information. Something else I noticed about Baradat’s writing was that all the information was very factual. There was little or no bias in any of his main points, even though the political topics he covered can be very controversial. I think this is an important quality in an author’s writing because it presents the reader with just the facts and allows them to form their own opinion from them with no outside influences. The only thing I can really criticize about Baradat’s piece was his definition of ideology. It was pretty unclear, especially for any reader who has never heard of it or seen examples of it before. Although he explains that there really isn’t an exact definition for the term, and it has been debated for a long time about what it truly is, it would have made the first chapter easier to understand if a better definition was given. Overall, I really found these two chapters as well as the author very interesting to read and I learned much more than I had originally expected.
Honestly, before being assigned this blog response, my initial impression of Baradat was that he was simply a historical, non fictional writer. In doing so, I accepted all of the information he presented as true and synthesized it into knowledge without any questions asked. Looking back on the first few chapters of his book “Political Ideologies,” I gained a new appreciation of Baradat’s writing because I realized that he explained his subjects in each of the chapters with a wide variety of support, while still keeping an entertaining style. Though I agreed with the majority of what Baradat wrote, there were still some areas of his work that called for criticizing. I found the first chapter on Ideology, quite profound, thus subduing my interest. I did however, appreciate Baradat’s wide degree of definitions of ideology, from Karl Marx’s which states that theology is “nothing more than a fabrication used by a particular group of people to justify themselves,” to Frederick Watkins who suggests that ideologies are always opposed to the status quo. When Baradat gave his own definition however, I felt that the last 8 pages I had just read could have been thrown out the window, for his own definition summed up all the qualities of ideology that had been discussed before. I also found his comparison of the U.S. Declaration of Independence and the Communist Manifesto to be lacking in purpose, because one can pretty much say that all government essays introducing a new form of government are “virtually identical.” Chapter 2 regarding the political spectrum was definitely the most interesting chapter for me to read. For one thing, I already felt that I had some prior knowledge on the subject due to my Civics class and the political terms he used were quite familiar to me. What Baradat did however, was take these terms, radical, moderate, liberal, conservative, and reactionary, and explain their characteristics in much further depth then my prior knowledge. Each individual description had a common theme of addressing to what extent each term what dissatisfied with the status quo, and to what extent and in what ways they wanted to alter the status quo. One part of the chapter that especially stood out to me was when Baradat explained how people on opposite ends of the spectrum can favor the same change. I found in very insightful how he stated that though largely a liberal stance, some conservatives have supported abortions because it would lower the number of unwanted children among the lower class, thus reducing welfare costs in the long run. I also enjoyed the chart on page 38 because I had never known that the status quo in Britain was Conservative, while America’s was in the middle of Liberal. I always thought we were Moderate, but I guess not. The Evolution of Democratic Theory, Chapter 4, immediately presented itself as a dull chapter. Baradat effectively explained the history and origins of democracy and went on to talk about the social contract theory, another topic I had learned in Civics. I had previously thought Thomas Hobbes made up the theory, but in reality Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean Rousseau were all social contract theorists. All according to Baradat supported that at one time no government existed on this earth and that people formed government for the greater good of their race. The explanations of the three theorists were sometimes a little too in depth, however the beliefs of all three could be easily applied to America today. The one that stood out the most was John Locke’s belief that people should only be allowed to accumulate the amount of wealth that they could get use out of. In America today, this is one of the key issues that we are facing and debating on right now and I found it extremely interesting that a man hundreds of years ago could have ideas that would remain contemporary even in this day and age. Even though I would not consider it casual reading by any means, I surprisingly enjoyed Baradat’s work and I appreciate the amount of knowledge I gained in subjects I had only previously dabbled in.
While reading the first few chapters of Baradat’s Political Ideologies I found myself having mixed reactions to the information that he presents. My mixed views come in how I reacted to chapters one and two. When reading chapter 1 I found myself vastly interested on Baradat’s take on political ideology. I enjoyed reading his sentiments on the source of ideology. I found it interesting that he views ideology as stemming from knowledge and the development of science, which he spends several pages discussing. I thought that his connection of the fact that people challenging conformity (accept only the knowledge it was presented with and not seek solutions to their own problems) within society lead to the development of science and technology, which in turn lead to the many problems resulting from developments over time. These problems of course span a wide range of topics including social, environmental, economic, and eventually political. From the need to solve such problems he states that political ideology was developed. He thus attributes all problems experienced today to the Industrial Revolution: “The political ideologies described in later chapters may be viewed as attempts to find a political accommodation to the social and economic conditions created by the Industrial Revolution.”(pg 6). I also found it interesting how he stated no clear cut definition of the word ideology but instead gave the reader an adequate understanding of the word by presenting overviews of several ideologies from many political scientists and their views on ideology itself. After comparing and contrasting the many views on political ideology he is then able to identify 5 major characteristics that he expresses to both state his own opinion and increase the reader’s general understanding. I was therefore extremely interested in the material discussed by Baradat in his first chapter. Despite this response to his writing and views in chapter 1, I found myself reacting quite differently to the material in chapter 2. In particular, I discovered that I largely disagreed with his view on progressive change (political view held by conservative, moderate, liberal, and radical groups have “no intrinsic value at all.” (pg 16). I felt it wrong for him to name progressive change worthless without first acknowledging how it has helped humanity in the past. Progressive change in technology has saved lives, increased production of food, and helped the economy blossom with more efficient production. Progressive change as stated by Baradat is one that looks towards the future for a “change in the status quo to something new and different.” (pg 16). Often times this new and different technology or knowledge saves lives or betters conditions for people all over the world. It is therefore unfair for Baradat to state that progressive change is worthless, when he did not acknowledge the opposite views on the subject or back his claims up from factual sources and other ideologists. Another statement which I disagreed with was his statement saying that in the chart all reactionary groups reguardless of their placement on his chart all feel the same dissatisfaction with their government. I feel that this is wrong because by doing this Baradat is essentially creating and fueling a political stereotype that groups a large number of people together. A group of such a vast number of people can not possibly have that many people believing firmly in the same exact ideology without questioning any of it or a variation of reactionary political philosophy. It is therefore clear that although expressing positive feelings in chapter 1, my feelings towards chapter 2 are drastically different.
After reading the first 40 or so pages of Baradat’s writing I find him relatively interesting and engaging. He is obviously a good writer but he is also surprisingly captivating for a philosophical writer. His ideas and writings on ideology and philosophy are quite logical and thoughtful. It is important for a writer such as Baradat to be engaging because that is the only way he will be able to get his full message across. In the case of historical writers especially, it is very important that they are fascinating and appealing to readers as to make them continue on. It is more interesting than most textbooks because the ideas are much better thought out and are more
The way Baradat dove into the historical aspects of ideology and its origins were interesting to read. His discussion of the origin of the term ideology and what ideology actually is understood to be was intriguing. His inclusion of many famous ideologists and their views on ideology were very interesting; the ideas of Louis Claude Destutt de Tracey, Karl Marx, Frederick Watkins, and David Ingersoll were included.
However, what I think is the most interesting part comes in chapter 2. This is Baradat’s discussion of the political spectrum and political attitudes. His discussion includes the connection between the “so-called”; radicals, liberal, moderate, conservative, and reactionary which are all relative in the world. These terms are different in each country and society because the society’s norm or “status quo” is different. This connects to the class discussion we had about America’s Liberals and Conservatives, and how these parties’ views might both be considered very conservative in another country like France. Baradat also used very clear examples to explain his thinking; he used famous figures like Mohandas Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. as examples of radical thinking. This allows the reader to comprehend the broad spectrum of things.
Baradat’s arguments were very remarkable and interesting, however, I do disagree with a few of his statements. Particularly the fact that he was biased in some of his arguments, but he did present his views clearly and in an organized fashion. Overall I think that Baradat has produced a very clear and thought-provoking piece of literature, it presents a views of many ideologists as well as the views of Baradat himself. The part on the political spectrum was extremely fascinating; it showed how conservatives and liberals and the radicals and the reactionaries all fit together and how they all are relative to each other. This was an interesting topic and because Baradat wrote in such a easy style to understand it enhanced the piece.
The Baradat readings are very intersecting to read, mostly because they present a puzzling word in a very simple manner. One of the finer parts of Baradat’s articles are his explanations of the different components and the way he helps the reader to understand them. For example, at the end of Chapter One, Baradat compares ideology to philosophy, a common study that most people are familiar with and incorrectly interchange with ideology. By telling the reader what ideology was not (i.e. profound, singly addressed, etc.), Baradat was actually helping the reader find out what it was. This was a good strategy to use and I commend him for it because it cleared up the minuscule differences that set the two terms apart. Baradat was not all good in Chapter One, though. He seemed repetitive with his restatement of government positions being held exclusively by the elite at the time. However, this is a very small negative of his writing The beginning of Baradat’s second chapter read more like that of a Civics class. He began with the different parts of the political spectrum (or range) and explanations of them (radical, liberal, moderate, conservative, and reactionary). I thought this section could have been made more concise so that the reader would not have to go to 3 or 4 more examples explaining the same thing. Not to say his explanations, were no good, they were excellent. They were in depth and spot on with the analysis of the different groups. As a liberal, I found myself agreeing with most of the generalities he made about liberals. For example, the ideas that liberals are dissatisfied with the government and are willing to change it through the legal way. Again, in this chapter, Baradat helped emphasize one group by comparing it to another. In this case, he describes Conservatives by comparing them to their opposites, the liberals. In this way, Baradat showed the reader that the difference was not so much in the change each wanted for the government, but that it really billed down to the fact the conservatives are more pessimistic about humans and their abilities than liberals are. This was an important fact in the debate of liberals versus conservatives that I have noted in the past and thought it was interesting that Baradat brought it up. The most interesting thing of all in Baradat’s writings, though, is his discussion of human rights and the extent that some are willing to go for it. In essence, that is what Baradat is going for in the writing as it is comes up in different parts of the reading. It is mentioned here “…ideology asks for people to take definite steps to improve their lives. Unlike philosophy, ideology invariably demands that people change the world to suit themselves,” (11). And here “But, the leftist argues…the fact that all people are human- equally human- should be the condition that predisposes our conduct towards one another” (25). These quotes demonstrate how betterment of human life is a topic that Baradat has a great interest in, probably because it is a major tenet of ideology. Either way, it is a topic mentioned frequently in the reading. Overall, the Baradat readings have been the most interesting thus far. I was able to read it with more fascination because of my interest in politics and it was nice to see how ideology was developed and how it has been affecting governments for years.
After reading the first few chapters of Baradat’s Political Ideologies my initial impression was that it was exceptional writing. Though I may not have agreed with everything that Baradat said, I still felt that writing itself was very well written. His effective writing style allowed me to follow him and stay focused on whatever topic he was discussing. His straightforward language forced me to absorb the information that he was trying to convey. I believe that part of the reason that his writing style is so effective is because he constantly makes connections between events in history/historical ideologies and the world today. This allows readers, including myself, to connect to the information being displayed and, therefore, better understand it. I especially enjoyed reading chapter one which I found to be both informative and abundant in information. Baradat discussed the various definitions for the term “ideology” and how it’s important to understand the thinking behind each of them. Some may argue that the first chapter was very wish-washy, not providing any solid definition but I felt it was very helpful to learn that “political scientists cannot agree on whether ideology is a positive, negative, or neutral feature of modern society” (7). Instead of sticking to one definition that may provoke a lot of controversy, Baradat gave a background on each of them. Chapter 2 definitely had a different feel than Chapter 1. I felt that chapter 2 went into greater detail, maybe more than necessary, and showed a bit of Baradat’s bias side. As a liberal myself, I must even admit that Baradat seemed to be slightly bias toward liberals. But one thing that stood out to me that I really liked was that Baradat made it a point to explain that just because you may strongly consider yourself to be on one end of the political ideology spectrum, you may differ in certain beliefs and may jump to another location on the spectrum for a certain topic. Though I do feel that the article goes into more detail and elaboration then necessary, the information that he is trying to convey is very reasonable, and interesting. Overall I commend Baradat for a successful book on the Political Ideologies. It really held my interest because I am so interested in politics it was easy to read and actually enjoy. Though Chapter 1 definitely outweighed chapter 2, I feel that all and all he created an effective piece of writing.
In my opinion Leon P. Baradat is a very intelligent and impressive writer. He was able to write about a topic like Ideology and make it reasonable and interesting. He used many examples to catch the reader’s attention. Before going into the depth of the article I was apprehensive and expecting it to sound like a lecture, but it was totally the opposite. I was surprised to see that I was actually able to comprehend the material and it was making sense to me. The main reason was that Baradat gives many examples from both history and our day to day life. He talks about how before the modern era, people were forced to do what they were told by their spiritual and temporal superiors. He mentions how ordinary people were not allowed to participate in the political system. He says that Ideologies are among the major tools used by modern governments to mobilize the masses. He also mentions that knowledge was meant to be revealed by a superior wisdom. I do not really agree with this statement because one can only gain knowledge by learning own their own and getting help from scholars but not necessarily someone who is more “superior”. The meaning of the word Ideology is often debated. Political figures cannot seem to agree if ideology is negative positive or a neutral feature of a modern society. He gives an example of Karl Marx, who believed that ideology was nothing more than participation used be a particular group of people who needed to justify themselves. He talks about L.T. Sargent who believes that ideologies are based on the value systems of various societies. Baradat says that ideology is a political term, but it can be applied to other contexts. According to him it contains views of the present and a vision of the future. He calls ideology different from philosophy. He says that philosophy is profound and deals with the world with a lot of detail, whereas ideology is uncomplicated and shallow. Ideology is addressed to huge numbers of people rather than to an individual. It asks people to transform themselves. “People are to change themselves in order to be better and to modify the environment around them”. In his other article he defines progressive change and regressive change with a lot of details and examples. He says that political change is fundamental to any society. He also describes radicals and liberals with depth and mentions their strong and weak points to help the reader grasp a better understanding of the difference between the two. Radicals are people who are strongly dissatisfied with the society as it is and want a change. Liberals are not as dissatisfied with the society though and they support the basic features of the society. Basically I was not at all bored while reading Bradat’s articles because he knows how to keep a reader attached by giving relevant examples and using language that is easy to understand and not as complex.
As a person who gets his news from The Daily Show, I felt that Baradat was truly well read and explained very thoroughly political terms that are often thrown around in politics. Baradat’s first chapter examines the idea of an ideology. This to me was VERY interesting. This is because in history classes we always learn how one man’s ideas influence people and what their ideology to the masses were, but we would never examine what an ideology was. Baradat’s descriptions of ideologies seem fundamental to understand the nature of change and any type of appeal to the masses. However, the most interesting part of this chapter was the striking similarities between a revered document in this country The Declaration of Independence and the “evil” socialist Communist Manifesto. It seems like throughout history, there really was a pattern of the 5 characteristics of an ideology Baradat talks about. Another interesting part about Chapter 1, is Baradat’s idea of how the industrial revolution is still continuous and is in a cybernetics age today. Having the knowledge attained from this first chapter, I feel that it causes me to view history a little differently now.
Baradat’s second chapter on the Spectrum of Political Attitudes was a lot more speculation and stereotyping than a thorough recognition of patterns in history like the first chapter. His analysis of change seems to relate very much so to Election 08 where the Democratic Party’s nominee Barack Obama was running on the message of change. Likewise, Obama is branded by his republican colleagues as the most liberal senator. Thus, it was interesting to see an introspection of what change was and what type of change there were, and likewise, what is the status quo. His explanation of why liberals are often seen as less patriotic compared to a conservative is because liberals are further away from the status quo and thus “find ourselves in opposition to society”. I also felt that it was important to differentiate between classical liberalism and contemporary liberalism as he did. This is because some parts of classical liberalism such as market freedom can be attributed to so called conservatives of today. Baradat’s description of the entire spectrum is perfectly adequate but his descriptions of a conservative seems troubling to me. This is because I never thought the Fox News conservative propaganda machine actually distrusted reason as much as they appear to do so. As much as I often dislike conservatives, his assumption of their reasoning and justification is somewhat exaggerated and flawed. His comment saying the right is elitist is absolutely hilarious because of how Obama, clearly standing on the left, is always labeled one. It was nice to see, finally, an explanation of how liberals and conservatives differ in economic policies.
Baradat’s analysis on the evolution of the democratic theory is also very interesting. This is because it can be clearly seen that America was built on these ideologies that he talks about. I appreciated how Baradat examined the idea of democracy stemming from Plato to the enlightenment whereas government’s rights where thoroughly debated. His analysis of these characters such as Hobbes, Locke, and Rosseau was however a bit simplified. His examination provided me with ideas that people often misunderstood or sometimes not realize existed. After reading about these figures beforehand, I felt that he could have easily gone into a more in depth analysis of their positions and even their background to explain why they felt that way. Without a doubt, one can clearly see that ideas such as property rights, collective concerns, and popular sovereignty originated from this time period. Another interesting point to me was what seemed as very liberal in this time: individual economic freedom is now somewhat conservative.
Overall, I learnt a lot from Baradat and feel that political science should be a subject that everyone, not only Americans, are well versed in because it is crucial to understanding one’s rights societal and economically.
I thought that Baradat has an amazing talent for writing about political based terminology and ideas and presenting them in a manner in which it is easy to digest and relate to. My sister has read the book before in her college classes and has referred back to it numerous times, and if my sister can easily read it and enjoy it although she has a hatred for politics, then anyone could thoroughly enjoy it, as I did, but I am very much in love with politics. What I did not like was that the author gives his opinion in so many places. I think it is good for an author to state his opinion and explain it to people, but not in a book that is an introduction to a topic. However, he did not attack ideologies that were not his own. Baradat clearly explains what ideology is and the political spectrum which was a better explanation than what I got in civics, but also the author brings economic, political and philosophical issues in a logical way. In the process, it clarifies left/right labels and dismisses many of the myths that the general public has because of AM radio. Baradat's thesis covers what ideology is (which was not as interesting as the other chapter but I kept on trucking through it) and the complete political spectrum by explaining each type and providing examples for each. I do agree with his explanations about the conservatives, although many have been displeased with this. Baradat calls conservatives out as religious, which is very true because when learning civics, conservatives believe the government should be involved in personal issues such as abortion, stem cell research, gay marriage, and many others. Most of those personal issues are religious, so there is an apparent marriage between conservatives and religion which has not changed and will not change for a while. That has not changed much, as shown through the last election because the Republicans lost because they were too conservative, therefore they must move to the middle to keep up with the people. He also goes into depth about the differences of liberals; new and old, which helps the masses understand what government is and the fundamentals of it, which is hard to do and I think he pulled it off gracefully. He also showed that conservatives and liberals are not all that different, which is true, because they are just polar opposites of each other. For example Liberals want change through legal systems, especially for human rights, while Conservatives want more control of human rights through government. In today's culture, I have found that most people are lead astray about the meaning of conservatism and liberalism because they get their impressions through the media; being neutral CNN, Liberal MSNBC, or Conservative FOX News. These chapters chase away all the legends formulated by the AM radio conservatives and the politically-correct totalitarians.
I found Baradat‘s work intriguing. Because of my growing interests towards politics as a result of this past election, Baradat’s writing was a pleasure to me to read. I found the spectrum of political attitudes quite interesting. He describes the spectrum as radical, liberal, moderate, conservative, and reactionary. He gives examples of figures in history that have each been labeled to a different part of the spectrum, such as Karl Marx, Benito Mussolini, Martin Luther King Jr., Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon, and others. Being towards the conservative side myself, I did not like how he showed bias towards the liberals and bashed the conservatives. He mentions that conservatives did not care about human equality, had “less faith that liberals”, and described their intensions as “animalistic impulses”. While I disliked the bias, I fell that Baradat did a great job in concepts and values behind each positions on the spectrum and each positions opinions on the status quo, for I also like how Baradat gave many examples of what ideology meant to different people. It gave the readers many different perspectives to view and have opinions on. The descriptions were not just one man’s ideology, but others too that would be appealing to the public. Overall, I fell that Baradat taught me about political science and all the different views on what ideology would be best for a nation. If everybody was exposed to the many different aspects of politics, the world could be a better place than it is today.
I found Baradat’s writing somewhat interesting, especially some parts of the reading. However, there are some parts where I believe he gets bogged down with information that is unnecessary. He sometimes gives too many views or opinions on an issue or topic. Personally, when I am reading an article like this, I want to see a concrete view that is followed throughout the reading and elaborated upon, not a lot of ideas splattered here and there. For instance, when attempting to define ideology, Baradat states several thesises about the topic. He gives tells you several different approaches or views on ideology and how many historians or historical figures have attempted to define it. Instead of giving me 5 or 6 possible definitions, I would have like to see him give the reader one definition that he thought was the most accurate definition and one that would most pertain to the rest of his writing. Despite the extra information Baradat includes, I thought the writing was still very informative. Baradat is clearly very knowledgeable about political science and I learned many things from the article. His interpretation of the ideology vs. philosophy and the political spectrum not only gave me new information, but showed me opinions that I had previously never thought of.
Baradat’s writing on the subject of political ideology is and interesting piece of work that approaches the topic of political theory from a position unknown to most people. Rather than focusing exclusively on the political divisions in the United States right now, as almost all people who comment on politics do, he approaches the issue from a historical perspective. Baradat analyses not only what positions people take on a variety of issues, but also where these positions come from and what it even means to take a position, or in his words, formulate an ideology. Baradat is correct in spending an entire chapter of his book putting forth a working definition of ideology, an important concept, often misunderstood, that is the subject of his writing. The distinction that he makes between ideology and philosophy is very interesting. I have found that I use the two words interchangeably, but after reading his thoughts on the subject, I am forced to rethink the differences. There are, in fact, distinctions to be made, on the basis of crowd appeal and complexity. I agree with his analysis that an ideology is inherently driven toward the masses, a simplified version of a vision of the future that can be easily described and comprehended by people from every walk of life. The analysis of the formation of modern political theory that Baradat offers is also insightful. He looks at the roots of modern democracy from both classical liberals as well as early founders of the modern conservative movement. His contrasting of how the same basic ideas and principles lead to the vastly different ideas of Locke and Burke is very important for us to understand today. He shows one of the great parts of being human, disagreement. Smart, educated people, can look at a situation, be given the same facts, and make vastly different conclusions.
I enjoyed Baradat’s writing style, and the reading helped me understand basic political science better. He defined ideology in the context in which he would be using it for the rest of his book. Before reading this, I had used the words ideology and philosophy synonymously without understanding the differences between them. While Ralph Waldo Emerson’s writings are philosophical, Karl Marx’s are ideological. Emerson’s were not necessarily political, they were intended to provoke introspective thought of the individual. Marx’s purpose was to motivate and mobilize the masses; it was political and not as profound as philosophy. Baradat spent the better part of the first chapter defining these two terms and highlighting their differences, which gave the reader a better understanding of the rest of the reading. I do think that Baradat’s writing clearly showcases his liberal bias. He describes conservatives as having “less faith than liberals”, “animalistic impulses”, and less desire for human equality; serious accusations. But overall, I thought what he wrote about the political spectrum was interesting and informative. Baradat clearly defined the political spectrum in chapter two. I thought radical referred to both the far right and the far left of the political spectrum, but reactionary is the correct term for the far right and radical should only be used to refer to the far left. He gave different examples for each place on the political spectrum, which gave readers a reference point so they could understand the concept better. Baradat made an interesting point on page 16 about progressive change. Often we think of the term “progressive” to be so positive and promising positive change. But he says that progress has no intrinsic value, it simply means a change from the status quo. This reading helped me gain a deeper understanding of the nuances of the political spectrum and the differences between philosophy and ideology.
Honestly, I enjoyed Baradat's work and found it interesting on how he views ideology. There are many definitions of ideology and many other interpretations, but I highly agreed with Baradat's view on ideology. I also agree with Baradat's opinion that ideology must be voiced to the mass of people rather than a certain group. Especially in politics, it would be wise and more convenient if one chose to appeal to the greater mass of people rather than just a small group of followers. Baradat's style of writing was something else that grabbed my attention. Although I have to admit I wasn't ecstatic when Mr. Kirby passed out those thick, back-to-back paged packet, when I started to read the first few chapters. He presents the text with a paragraph explaining what he intends to talk about, and with that it was a lot easier to understand what his opinions. I personally feel that the first few chapters reminded me of a classic school textbook. There were clear, concise answers to certain questions that were raised and the main ideas of this whole reading was easy to spot with the way he organized it. Although I agree with some of his sayings and ideas, and the way he wrote this book, I do not agree with some aspects of his ideas. Take the political spectrum for an example. I am not fully conservative or fully liberal, so I didn't really agree with his diagram of the political spectrum. It seemed to me as if his political spectrum presented two opposite teams, liberal and conservative, and then two extremists at the end. It seemed to general. I think that each category somehow fits in with each other in numerous ways rather than being a concrete label. All in all I enjoyed Baradat's work. It was enjoyable to compare and contrast some of his ideas with my own or others. And I also appreciate the fact that he knows what he is talking about and uses a wide range of examples to support himself. Baradat actually makes political science seem interesting.
I enjoyed reading the Baradat readings on political ideology much more than I expected to. I didn’t really think I would enjoy reading this and though that it would be boring and uninteresting but in fact I found it to be just the opposite of what I expected. Leon Baradat’s writings proved him to be a very intelligent, thoughtful and interesting man. I thoroughly enjoyed his discussions of Ideology by talking about the different views of what Ideology is by different people. These discussions included views from people such as Karl Marx, David Ingersoll, Terrence Ball, and Louis Claude Destutt de Tracey. He made it clear that a view of the political spectrum of two very different and extreme ends was the opinion he held. I for one agree with this one particular spectrum of a line spectrum consisting of one highly conservative side and one side very liberal and even radical. However I do believe that when discussing this particular spectrum the point should be made that in more ways than one the extreme ends of the spectrum are more alike than different. I feel that some who consider themselves to be radical are even more similar to the highly conservative, reactionary members of society than other liberal democrats. I did enjoy how he slightly connected the classic Ideologies to modern day American and other Political Ideologies. The way he presented the information made it easy for me, someone not particularly interested in political ideologies of the world, made it easy for me to understand and make connections to modern politics. Especially the discussions of the most recent elections it became easy to make these connections. Overall I did enjoy these reading and found Baradat to be a very interesting and thought provoking political writer.
42 comments:
I greatly enjoy Baradat’s work. I find him interesting, thoughtful, and logical. Personally, I find these things to be very important when reading any text, especially one of a political nature. Baradat goes past the typical definitions of conservative, liberal, etc. to really cause understanding of these terms.
Irregardless of whom you is. Misusery of the American language ain’t no small problem. One simply must know the meanings of the words one says. After all, to call someone in this time conservative means something entirely different from calling someone conservative in the 1700s.
I do, however, have one issue with Baradat’s classifications regarding a conservative versus a liberal viewpoint. He implies that a conservative viewpoint is often tied to religion. I do not believe this is true. I would say that most highly religious people are conservative, but not that most conservatives are highly religious. The liberal movement in America, emerging from the Democratic Party, came from the “Progressives” who wanted to prohibition. This stemmed from religion. The “liberal” part of America, came from religion. Barrack Obama is technically an Evangelical, he believes in God, and he believes Christ died for his sins. (I think this is ridiculous, but let’s not talk about religion too much ;)) However, Obama interprets religion differently from Dubya. We can certainly say that Obama’s ideas seem very different from Dubya’s.
Other than the religion issue, I very much enjoy Baradat’s writing. I feel that he is apt in his descriptions and in his ideas. I felt I learned from him, and I felt he knew what he was talking about.
The Baradat readings were interesting to read. As a person who is not very interested in politics, and for that matter, hardly pays attention to politics, I still found this reading to be engaging. The historical exploration into Ideology and its origins was presented in a thoughtful manner. His presentation of the economic basis of the political ideologies as well as the religious basis helps in following his train of thought. I found his discussion of the origins of the term ideology and the continuation of that discussion to the different views of what ideology exactly is to be very interesting. However, I did not entirely agree with the obvious influences of his own views upon the article. He clearly is biased in his discussion of the political spectrum, as well as in many other sections of the article. I also do not entirely agree with his presentation of the political spectrum, as he describes it as a line with two opposite and extreme ends. Rather I believe that it should be presented more as a circle, with the two ends being closer to one another than with the middle. That is, that radical and reactionary views are closer to each other, and easier to transition between than those of liberalism and conservatives. His diagrams exhibiting the relationships that exist in demand-side and supply-side economics were also of interest. His discussions of the economic systems and views of economy were somewhat interesting, but seemed a bit unneeded in light of the focus placed on the discussions of the political systems. I also did not like the emphasis of the American examples, and how he seemed to always compare the different ideologies that he is discussing with the American versions. It seemed like an unnecessary comparison, with little overall effectiveness, and also seemed to take away from the examples. It would have been more effective to continue with the use of global examples, which would help to show how these ideologies were in fact applicable to all governments. A good thing about his comparisons to the American government was his discussion of how the society of the United States viewed progressive and retrogressive movements. His discussion of the progressive/retrogressive movements shows how Americans are in fact biased against retrogressive movement and in favor of progressive movement as a result of the influences of society. His use of the comparison of the British, U.S., and Saudi Arabian political spectrum and where their views tend to lie concerning one issue, that being Public Employee Strikes both seems to emphasize parts of his argument, as well as take away from it. The example helps to show how the status quo can be within each system, as well as how each government has its own status quo. However the example still places a large influence on the United States style of government, and therefore takes away from the idea of ideology and the political spectrum being a global basis.
In my opinion, the Baradat article was pretty good. I had some issues with the article and how it was written though. Throughout the first chapter of the book, there was no clear definition of what an ideology was. I realize that this issue was and is still debated but I did not like the fact that I never really got a clear view on what exactly and ideology was. That made the rest of the chapter a little more challenging to understand since I did not fully understand the concept that was involved in this chapter. I found it a little odd that he put so many opinions about what ideology was into his novel. He included the ones of Louis Claude Destutt de Tracey, Karl Marx, Frederick Watkins, David Ingersoll, L.T. Sargent, and Terrence Ball. He, however, did not include his own opinion on what he believes is the definition of ideology. Another thing that I liked about the reading was the fact that he broke parts of it down so that the common person would be able to understand what he was talking about. An example of this would be when he talks about the five properties that are significant to the definition of ideology. He simply lists the five items and then explains them. They are: 1. the fact that it is a political term, 2. it has to do with the present and the future, 3. it deals with action, 4. it is directed towards the masses, and 5. they are written in simple terms so people can understand them. One of the aspects that I liked was the fact that he often used illustrations in his discussion of the “spectrum of political attitudes”. I thought it was very helpful to see his idea of the spectrum drawn out. It made the concept much easier to visualize since you had an idea of it in front of you. I also think that Baradat did a good job with the descriptions of each of the political attitudes on the spectrum. He used good examples for each and that made it easier to understand exactly what he meant when he was talking about each one. For Radicals, he used the example of Mahatma Gandhi who was a pacifist, which is a type of radicalism. He did not use any type of violence in his actions which shows that he was different from most of the radicals. Being a radical just means that you want a significant amount of change to happen in a relatively short period of time because you really do not like what is currently going on in your country. Besides the one criticism that I had of the article, overall I believed that the article was well written and it explained almost everything that I had questioned before I had read it.
I found the Baradat reading very interesting. As someone who is fairly interested in politics, I found there were many aspects of Baradat’s writing that I agreed with. However, I also found myself in disagreement with a few of his fundamental points.
I thought the most interesting part was chapter two, which discussed the spectrum of political attitudes. Baradat discusses the spectrum in relation to the commonly used terms of radical, liberal, moderate, conservative, and reactionary. He notes that “most of us…will find themselves at several different places on the spectrum in relation to a variety of specific issues.” (17). I find this very insightful, particularly at a time when our nation seems so divided over which political party they support. Although I am too young to vote, I already see that I do not agree entirely with either party. Another great point Baradat makes is that “Being clear about the values people hold is usually more revealing about the place they occupy on the spectrum than simply knowing what policy changes they advocate.” (15). I think this holds to be very true; people should examine the values they hold before blindly following a leader for a particular policy they support. The chapter goes on to discuss the more specific aspects of each group. I thought Baradat really explained each group effectively because he explained the origins, key beliefs, and differences in relation to other groups. He also used modern day examples that most readers are familiar with. These approaches were very effective in helping me better understand each party.
Some statements Baradat made I disagreed with. For example his statement “violence is used y people at practically every point on the political system’ (18), was a statement I thought supported radical ideas too much. True, warfare is an example of violence, and is used by pretty much any party. But there is a difference between warfare which is fought for a reasonable cause, and radical violent uprisings, which are usually on a smaller scale for a lesser cause. This difference is one Baradat fails to address.
The diagrams in this packet were also interesting and helped me to understand the political spectrum better. For example the diagram on page 38 compares the British, US, and Saudi Arabian political spectrums. This was interesting in helping me not only understand US politics but to understand them in relation to that of other nations.
Overall, I thought Baradat had many good ideas that were effectively conveyed in his writings. They helped me to understand politics in general more, but also to more deeply analyze my views and to discover the roots of my opinions.
Historical analyses have gained a notorious reputation for being dry, incomprehensible, and needlessly superfluous. When one stumbles upon a piece of literature that breaks these conventions the reader is, needless to say, receptive. The first few chapters of Baradat’s Political Ideologies have proven to be textbook material in a better written and thought out form. Its explanation of the evolution of political thought and description of political ideologies provides insight on political ideologies in a manner applicable to modern day politics.
In the study of history, students are often apt to question the purpose of their studies outside of the classroom. Baradat’s book however ties the historical foundations of political ideology to our modern day world in a manner both informative and interesting to the reader. On page 5 for example, when discussing society’s reliance on science to solve their problems, Baradat refers to examples the reader can relate to such as an increase in mobility due to automobiles yet a proportional increase in air pollution.
Much of the effectiveness of Baradat’s Political Ideologies is due to the straight forward and clear writing style he chooses to employ. Before each chapter, Baradat provides a brief summary of what the reader has to look forward too in the following pages. Both concise and informative, these summaries provide an excellent segway into the rest of the chapter. Throughout the chapter itself, Baradat sticks to a clear purpose of either defining a term or explaining a concept, making life for the reader that much easier. He draws his five part definition of ideology and his definitions of radical, liberal, moderate, and conservative viewpoints in a clearly, unlike other sources that leave more unanswered than answered. In addition to the clear core of the chapter, Baradat also employs footnotes and graphs to clarify what he could not within the context of the chapter.
Baradat additionally offers varying viewpoints regarding the subject matter he writes about, remaining relatively unbiased throughout the first few chapters. Whenever a strong standpoint is introduced, it is in reference to a researched source. Baradat’s purpose appears to be to educate rather than persuade, allowing him to use a wide range of references from Thomas Jefferson to Karl Marx. On page six of his book, Baradat can be quoted as saying, “Indeed, political scientist cannot agree on whether ideology is a positive, negative, or neutral feature of modern society. While I have no hope of settling this controversy here, I do wish to discuss the origins of the term, explain the varying definitions of the word, and arrive at a definition that will be useful to us during the rest of this study.” He encourages the reader to be on guard toward society’s general bias towards progress on page 16, and violence as merely extremely venue of expression on page 18. He states on page 26 when discussing two opposing sides to an issue that “both of these are powerful arguments, and indeed, the way you come down on this issue will go a long way toward determining where you might find yourself on the spectrum” inferring an objective presentation of the subject matter (26). His equal use of support coming from all spectrums of society creates a relatively unbiased piece of literature.
Despite his attempt to remain objective however, it is clear to the reader that Baradat falls toward the left side of the spectrum through his sarcastic undertones. On page 25 he is cited as saying, “Conservatives have less faith than liberals that people can use reason to restrain their animalistic impulses and their emotions; they mistrust human nature.” One can’t help but take note of his sarcasm in the use of words such as “animalistic.” Another example occurs when discussing the variations between the emphasis of property between liberals and conservatives. Baradat introduces a case scenario in which a person refuses to sell a piece of property to an African American. He states that liberals are more concerned with human rights whereas conservatives are more concerned with the rights to property. He is then quoted as saying, “the property right obviously supersedes the human right” with an implied sarcastic undertone. Though everyone is subject to an opinion, his sarcastic undertones take away from the purpose of providing an objective piece of literature.
Though slightly biased, the points brought up in Baradat’s writing are original and thought provoking. Throughout the first two chapters, he draws interesting connections between people such as Thomas Jefferson and Karl Marx. He states that theoretical differences and individual focuses aside, these two noted men drew documents with similar ideological statements. Baradat also brings up an interesting argument of the wording in the Declaration of Independence regarding the wording of “life, liberty, and property” in place of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”
Though Baradat’s writing is slightly outdated, notably when he says, “We currently find ourselves in an era in which the youth tend to be more conservative than any other age group,” the vast majority of his Political Ideologies is well written and effective literature.
Baradat’s first chapters in his book Political Ideologies provide a comprehensive analysis of what a political ideology truly is as well as the spectrum of certain basic political concepts. My first impression of Baradat is that he is an educated man who can simply state things in his book so that it is easy for the common person to understand what our political system is based on and how we determine where one may fall on the political spectrum. I am a person that doesn’t really understand politics, but by reading these selected chapters it became easier for me to understand the political concepts of our modern day world. Baradat also used both modern day examples as well as events that happened in the past, to help the reader comprehend what he was talking about with either political ideologies or political concepts. In his first chapter, Ideology, Baradat states that political ideologies have been defined with various definitions which are often debated. Baradat then goes on to state various definitions by several academics to show the variety in the definitions, but he provides a five-point generic definition of what an ideology is to help simplify this abstract idea. He also goes on to talk about how economic and social circumstances set up the political ideologies, which help as well in his description of what an ideology is. In chapter two, The Spectrum of Political attitudes, Baradat describes a political spectrum which ranges from the political concepts of a radical all the way to that of a reactionary. Throughout the chapter he describes the values, view of change, and methods of each political concept. Baradat also gives a survey of great thinkers that fall on all parts of the spectrum, such as Karl Marx, Benitio Mussolini, Martin Luther King Jr., Ronald Regan, Richard Nixon, and many more. It was particularly evident in this chapter that the author, while trying to remain neutral, was leaning more to the left side of the political spectrum by evidence shown in his writing. For example he describes conservatives as not caring about human equality, and that they have “less faith than liberals” and that they have “animalistic impulses”. I view these comments as putting liberals in a better light than conservatives, thus giving him a bias towards the left side of the spectrum. Although he was somewhat biased, I feel that he did a wonderful job in describing the political concepts and what values are included in each. Baradat also states that you may not be completely on one section of the spectrum but have various values which fall into different ranges of the spectrum, but you will most likely fall onto one section with the majority of your values. Baradat’s chapters also related to what we are learning in our European history class right now, for the founders of ‘classical liberals’ (John Locke) and conservatism (Edmund Burke) who were figures in the Age of Enlightenment. Also the belief that ‘people could improve their condition by taking positive action instead of passively accepting life as it came’ came from the Age of Enlightenment, and made Ideologies necessary. Overall Baradat provide a piece of literature that allowed for easy understanding of ideologies and the political spectrum, which our poltical system is based on.
Keep up the good work. Noah, to answer Dubbya's question, are children is learning! You all are the proof!
So far after reading the first forty pages of Baradat I was impressed with his writing. There were many different aspects of his writing which I found to make it interesting to read allowing it to hold my attention. One thing that I liked was how he did not give an exact definition for the word “Ideology”. Instead he listed the five different circumstances the word is used under and describes each of them. He mentions how the term of the word is frequently debated as it could represent a number of different ideas. I also liked how he gave background on the word, such as when it was first used by Antoine Louis Claude Destutt de Tracy to mean “the study of the process of forming ideas, a ‘science of ideas’” (Baradat 7). He then goes on to mention on Karl Marx and Friedrich Engles who stated that “the dominate political ideas, or ideology of any society would always reflect the interests of the ruling class” (Baradat 7). After telling the reader about the origin of the word, Baradat then goes on to tell the reader how it is used today in the variety of different ways. I liked how he said all the different ways that it is used because it was able to show you how diverse it is and how people interpret it in different ways. This forces the reader to really think about what it is the word truly means seeing as he does not come right out and say what the definition for ideology really is. Some people may find this to be annoying but I actually liked it. This really did force me to look back at what he was saying and really think about what I was reading, causing me to understand it more.
Another thing that I really liked about how Baradat wrote was the break down he did of the different Political Attitudes. Baradat did a nice job of outlining the chapter on Spectrum of Political Attitudes so that it made sense. First he discussed what the political spectrum was with diagrams of it. This was useful to be able to visualize what it was that he was describing. Also he mentioned how the different groups fell into place. He then went on to describe each political attitude in great detail. He first stated the definition of what that political attitude believed in and did not believe in. He then went on to give examples about the party. I found this to be very useful and effective. I felt that it was able to give the reader a completely understanding of the idea and also to be able to see how people act on it and why people might agree or disagree with it. It was also nice to see what each group thought of the “status quo” and how the opinions it change. He also described everything in terms that were easy to understand. I personally liked this because usually when I read articles about politics if it does not state its ideas in a very direct matter I tend to loss interest. However, this was not the case when I was reading Baradat. I really enjoyed his style of writing, and found it very easy to focus on and understand the points and ideas that he was trying to get across. I look forward to reading the other chapters and seeing what else he has to say.
Although I believe Baradat’s first chapter regarding ideologies to be very interesting, I strongly disagreed with many statements made during the second chapter about the political spectrum. His spectrum attempts to represent the desire for change, however a spectrum portraying that would end with conservatives, as the extreme conservatives are the most content with the current status. Reactionaries are not content with current society as they lay to the right of the status quo, they in fact wish for change, as would a liberal or radical, but rather in the opposite direction. This spectrum can serve its basic purpose, but I believe that Baradat’s examinations of each attitude would have brought him to a more detailed spectrum. Conservatives and reactionaries are placed next to each other on the spectrum, however they have very little in common. An extreme liberal can be described as a radical, but an extreme conservative cannot be described as a reactionary. A conservative wants little change to society, while reactionaries push for change. In these terms, radicals and reactionaries seem to have more in common. His second spectrum seems to be more accurate; it splits the spectrum down the middle with the status quo, places progressive change (radicals, liberals, moderates, and conservatives) to the left, and retrogressive change to the right with a detailed description of each level of a reactionary. The first spectrum did not illustrate that a conservative lies on the progressive side, rather it showed it on the retrogressive side.
I also disagreed with Baradat’s explanation of a conservative, as his bias pushed towards the liberals. Historically, a conservative could have been described as mainly religion-based, but he does not take into account, as he does with his explanation of liberals, the change that has occurred to the conservatives as a whole. Those who are religious may be conservatives, however those who are conservatives may not necessarily be religious. Rather, it can be argued that the reactionary attitude tends to be more religious. Reactionaries wish for society to move backwards, to revert to the old ways of society. Religion was historically one of the most important aspects in society, so it only seems logical that a reactionary would be religious. The belief that conservatives are religious can then be tied to the inaccuracy of the political spectrum, which too closely relates a conservative and a reactionary.
After reading the first 42 or so pages of Baradat’s Political Ideologies I’ve found the material to be rather logical and interesting. The concepts and ideas behind political science have always been of interest for me, and I feel that Baradat does a sound job in explaining ideology in his first chapter, as well as the differences between the five levels of the political spectrum. The information is written in such a manner that makes it relatively easy to comprehend, not to mention that it flows quite fluently. I especially found the examples Baradat provided to explain the differences between the different political factions to aid greatly in developing a clear picture of each political ideology.
I especially found Baradat’s analysis at the beginning of his first chapter to be very insightful. Baradat, I felt, makes many excellent points on the development of human society, how as we have developed, grown, and come closer we have actually been moving further and further apart. It was interesting to read on how Baradat feels that our economic expansion and development has led to increasing social problems, and a new-age form of slavery, making specific reference to how “the world is becoming increasingly materialistic, decreasingly spiritualistic (5).” In essence, Baradat makes the argument that the world is developing at too quick a rate, and this development is causing the world’s problems to be harder to handle. He also makes the case that because development is increasing at the rapid rate that it is, values have begun to change. Our society is driven toward instant satisfaction and industry, always pushing forward, trying to develop itself ever more. We’re losing touch with each other, and to an extent, ourselves.
Baradat’s description and explanation of ideology itself is well done in my opinion. Baradat took a somewhat vague term and was able to classify it into five general definitions, each of which aids the reader in coming to understand just what scope is covered by it. I was especially interested in Baradat’s comparison between ideology and philosophy, though I disagree with some points he makes in this section of his book. I agree on the fact that philosophy is more profound and introspective than ideology, but I do not agree that ideology and philosophy do not have a great connection. What one believes philosophically will have an impact upon what their ideological beliefs are. I feel that Noah’s statement that ideology is almost a smaller, dummed down version of philosophy is an accurate interpretation.
Chapter two of this book, I felt, was an excellent source of information in regards to political change. The manner in which the information was presented was very easy to comprehend; even one who had never known the differences between the levels of the political spectrum would be able to gain an understanding of them. The examples presented are especially useful in understanding the concepts discussed. I also found that the charts provided, especially the chart on the final page of chapter two, greatly aided in developing an understanding of what was being said. While reading, I noticed that Beredat went into great detail to explain the differences between liberals and conservatives. I overall agree with the definitions and explanations Beredat provided to explain each level of the political spectrum.
I’ve found myself to greatly enjoy the ideas and topics discussed in this book. The topic itself interests me, and the fact that the information is simply presented and thoroughly explained makes it a relatively easy read. I hope that these facts stand for the continuation of the packet.
Baradat provides an inclusive examination on what the term ideology means as well as providing views on the political spectrum. I personally found the Baradat reading extremely interesting. My first impression of the readings was that the readings explained everything well and made complex ideas it easy to understand. In the first two chapters he used examples that connected present day events and issues to the past. I thought that was a good idea to do because it made the points he was making clearer.
In the first chapter, Ideology, I though he made good points, however, I think they could have been made more succinctly. His whole point in chapter one was to point out what an ideology was. He showed in many ways what makes up an ideology and define what it was. However I felt like it was too much though to clearly define the term. That might have been his point, to show how an ideology is not an exact thing that can be clearly defined but it did make it a bit harder to understand what point he was trying to make about the ideology because of how much information was in the chapter. I did like however, his writing style, it really held my attention and made it easy to read. I also liked the connections that he made between the Declaration of Independence and the Communist Manifesto. Baradat shows how the two are very similar. I thought it was a good and interesting point to make which really made me understand what he was trying to prove.
In the second chapter, The Spectrum of Political Attitudes, I though Baradat did an excellent job explaining the political spectrum. Though I am one more involved in politics than most it was a clear explanation of the differences and similarities. I also thought that the use of the diagram as a visual representation of what he was trying to explain was very helpful to the reader. In this chapter one thing that I found slightly odd was that there seemed to be a bias in the writing. When trying to talk about liberals versus conservatives on pg. 25, Baradat seems to be biased against conservatives. I also found on pg. 30 where he says, “ The change itself is not important; what is significant in the anticipated result”. I found this point a very interesting one. It made a lot of sense that that would be what people fear. The fear is of what will happen not how it will happen. Chapter 2 was also very interesting to me because Baradat used examples from present day as well as the past. The connection made it easy for me to understand something I probably wouldn’t have. I love the fact that he could explain it that way and connect it to what has happened as well as what is happening now with out economy and political system. On page 35 it says, “economic pressures are the primary motivation fro choosing a particular political position.” That is pretty much what is happening today in our society with the economic crisis so I thought that was mildly interesting to see that said when it is playing out in front of us as we speak.
Overall I thought this reading was extremely interesting and helped me better understand the point that I might have not normally understood so well. Baradat made his points clear and used examples that helped to keep my attention and help me understand what could have been a hard reading to comprehend. In essence this was a good reading and a well written one at that.
Usually, when I think of political literature, I call to mind long, tedious textbooks rendered nearly unreadable by their dryness and academic language. Therefore, it startled me to find that Baradat’s Political Ideologies is utterly readable. The language that Baradat employs is simple and modern; his ideas are concise and to the point. Even more surprisingly, I found the content of the book to be quite engaging.
For instance, I found Baradat’s explanation of the origin of ideology fascinating. It was truly interesting to consider the historical factors that resulted in our modern system of politics. I also found his definition of ideology to be interesting, accurate, and insightful. Although I had absorbed its general meaning from the media and my previous experiences with history, I had never had the exact meaning of “ideology” explained to me before. Baradat’s five part definition gave a concrete form to my previously vague idea of what an ideology was. It was also interesting to learn the difference between an ideology and a philosophy. Before, I had used the terms interchangeably. However, the book made me see the subtle differences between the two.
I also liked Baradat’s description of the “left to right” political spectrum. His descriptions of radicals, liberals, conservatives, and reactionaries made me think about the political spectrum in a way that I had never considered before. I especially found interesting Baradat’s assertion that liberals take a more optimistic view of humanity, while conservatives take a more cynical view. Although I do not completely agree (I know liberals who are quite cynical about human nature), it truly made me think about how one’s view of the world influences one’s political leaning. I also found Baradat’s point that the political spectrum means different things for different governments to be quite insightful. Too often, we assume that our political norms are the same for other countries, an assumption that impedes our understanding of the world.
Baradat was quite successful in creating an interesting and informative description of political ideology. Many of his ideas piqued my interest, which is notable given my previous boredom with political science. I look forward to reading more of his work.
Michael Saxton
After reading the first two chapters of Baradat’s “Political Ideologies,” I have found his attempt to define ideology and his characterization of each of the five different political attitudes to be both interesting and accurate. The reason that I find his definition of ideology accurate is because of his inclusion of other’s definitions of the term. In the first chapter of his book, Baradat contrasts Antoine Louis Claude Destutt de Tracy’s definition to the classification of ideology by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. While Tracy believed that ideology implied observing the physical environment to form ideas, Marx and Friedrich believed that ideology was used by a powerful group of people to maintain power in a country. Although Baradat includes different opinions of the exact definition of the word ideology, Baradat believes that there are five criteria of ideology that many historians agree upon. In his introduction, Baradat states that ideologies are often simplistic, used to refer to political situations, include a plan for a future, are directed towards a large group of people, and have goal-driven plans for how to improve the lives of others (1). After much consideration, it has been determined that this definition of ideology is the most accurate. In looking at events in the past, it can be determined that one could use at least a few of Baradat’s criteria to prove that something occurred because of ideology. For example, in looking at how the Crusades were instigated, one could see that the Church had a big role in persuading knights to go and reclaim the Holy Land. The Popes had visions of Jerusalem becoming a Christian city, and they planned to achieve this goal using military force. This is only one example that proves that Baradat’s description of ideology is accurate.
In the second chapter of his book, Baradat attempts to define each of the five political attitudes, which are Radical, Liberal, Moderate, Conservative, and Reactionary. Using sophisticated organization, Baradat divides his second chapter into multiple sections, five of which are used to explain what people in each of the five political attitudes believe in. Speaking in general terms, Baradat describes Radicals and Liberals as people who want an immediate progressive change in government. However, he points out that Radicals are more likely to break laws to achieve their ends while Liberals usually try to reform the system. Baradat describes Moderates as people who see some flaws in the current governmental structure, but prefer gradual instead of abrupt change. Baradat additionally describes Conservatives as people who enjoy the current political system and are reluctant to see any type of alteration in the system. Reactionaries are described in Baradat’s second chapter as being people who prefer retrogressive change (20-28). Baradat makes claims that although people may be Liberal, they may agree with Conservatives and disagree with other Liberals on certain issues and policies. Baradat uses the example of abortion to explain that while some Liberals would oppose abortion because it is unfair to the fetus, while other Liberals argue that not allowing women the option to abort goes against individual liberties (30-31). Baradat also discusses that individual’s opinions on issues cannot be classified as either Liberal or Conservative because what is considered Liberal or Conservative is different depending on the country. Baradat points out that on the issue of strikes, people in England who are pro-strikes would be considered Conservative while people in Saudi Arabia with the exact same viewpoint would be considered extremely Liberal (37). After reading the first two chapters of his book, it has been determined that Baradat’s ideas have little if any folly. His book includes strong pieces of evidence that can be used to prove the validity of his arguments. Additionally, if one were to look at specific events in history, one would see that his definitions of certain terms fit the said event in question.
I thought that Baradat’s Political Ideologies was a good read. It helped explain origins and histories of terms used, and also explained what those terms really meant, helping abolish any myth one might have on any of those terms. The first chapter on the origin of the word ideology and also what it means was very informative. I thought it was interesting to see how so many people had similar and different views on what an ideology was, and I think that that what he defined as being an ideology based on similarities between other figures was good for all intents and purposes. It definitely seems accurate when reading though what Fredrick Watkins, David Ingersoll, and others thought about the meaning of and also how to define an ideology.
I also was pleased when reading through the different ends of the political spectrum, because it was presented well and also was very insightful. The examples provided on major historic figures such as Martin Luther King Jr. that could represent these categories made it easier to understand what the political spectrum’s separations were and also the definitions and differences between liberals, radicals, and so on.
The only thing that really should have been clarified was when Baradat was talking about how conservatives were more likely to be law abiding citizens and so on. It should be stated that more factors exist to being patriotic and law abiding than just some political views that someone falls into. Things like the ‘feel good’ factor, and also morals come into play when people decide what they should and shouldn’t do, and frankly I don’t believe that it has so much to do with being a conservative or liberal as much as was suggested. It also was wrong to suggest that liberals would be any less patriotic than conservatives. Liberals would be, in my view, happy that such a system as their countries’ exists that would allow them to try and change the laws peacefully and successfully, and with a fair chance. I wouldn’t be less patriotic if I were a liberal or a conservative. It feels as if he didn’t try and take into account the humanity factor when trying to generalize in some instances.
As for the talk on philosophies, I thought it was mostly well organized, and in particular something I found interesting was the political spectrums’ that compared US, British, and Saudi Arabian politics. I found it interesting that Saudi Arabia was so radical, it seems as if to strengthen my views on how the ignorance of some geographic regions makes them fanatical, but now is not the time to discuss that, maybe in class I could explain better.
When studying a piece that focus's on political ideologies, it is frequently difficult to find writing that is both informational and not inherently dry. Baradat, I believe, has found the medium between too simplistic and unnecessarily difficult, leaving his work interesting, while still letting the reader attain valuable knowledge on his subject.
The first few chapters of his Political Ideologies gives the reader background information on how the term ideology came about, and why it is such an important term, even if it is somewhat controversial. For example, without this background knowledge of the Industrial Revolution, it would be hard to comprehend his point that as it progressed, American civilization was ripped farther and farther from its roots. He went on to mention that the increasing machines were a prominent reason for the separation between boss and worker. That information truly demonstrates how and why ideology is important, for these drastic shifts in the social structure of the work place completely undermined any political ideologies that were currently there, and replaced them altogether with new beliefs.
His next section was used to give more background information on political ideologies and who believed in which scenario. This was a useful way to learn more about the contradicting definitions, as it was clearly illustrated for the reader the various ideas on ideologies meaning. Without this section, readers would of been less informed on perhaps, what a political ideology even was, so it is my opinion that Baradat did a good job in providing, again, enough background information for the reader to truly comprehend what his main focus is about.
Finally, as Baradat comes to his descriptions of Conservatism, Liberalism, Radicalism and Reactionaryism, it is my opinion that he does a good job comparing and contrasting each of these with each other to show how they compare and how they contrast, giving the reader a better basic understanding of their relation to one another. I, however, did not agree with all of his opinion, but refuse to let that be a reason to dislike his piece, for they are of his opinion and he supports his argument well. I appreciated his inclusion of the use of money from each group, for it really distinguished the differences in their beliefs in what should receive funding. For example, Baradat mentions that, "As a general rule...liberals will spend more on domestic programs than will conservatives. This...also pertains to foreign policy." I found this a helpful tool in his comparison of each political attitude, for it showed what they focus on, which in turn shows the reader what kind of policies you should expect from each group, which goes on to truly educate the reader about the subject matter.
Overall, I believed Baradat's work should be a prominently taught article when on the subject of Political Ideologies for it definitely gives the reader the education needed to understand the matter fully. Its wonderful use of background knowledge truly prepares the reader for his ideas, making it utterly impossible for his meaning and purpose to be lost, which in my mind makes for the very best kind of author. All in all, I thought it was a solid article on very interesting subject matter.
The Baradat article we read was very interesting and gave me a new understanding on how politics work. First off I really don’t follow politics so this article really gave me an interesting perspective on how politics, and political philosophies and ideologies are classified. The writing style of this article also surprised me in the fact that it was easy to read and to become interested about what you were reading. I don’t read much about politics because at times even the most interesting topics can start to drone due to the way the literature is written. As I am now starting to overcome that and enjoy the articles, this article was like a breath of fresh air and really got me thinking about the way I view and where I stand in politics. The first chapter on ideologies was a new view since I had always assumed that the political philosophies mirrored normal philosophies but it was pointed out that they were different. The subtle difference between the two is not often pointed out but it makes an important difference since normal philosophies are more profound. I don’t agree with how different he makes the two ideas seem as they both spawn from the same point, the view of someone on how everyone should live their lives. In fact, most political ideologies are supported by a personal philosophy that the person believes in, and while he does point out what he believes the difference between the two are, he contradicts himself at points. He states that ideologies and philosophies differ by pointing out that ideologies are pointed at the masses while philosophies are pointed at both the masses and individuals. While this may be true, an ideology can be followed by just one person since a certain person may follow a certain political view, his take on the ideology’s standpoint can completely differ from those who might follow the same thing. A point that Baradat concentrated on that I thought was very fascinating and important was the formation of empirical learning and how that affected politics from that point onward. Many people now can’t comprehend how our learning style used to be based on metaphysical statements rather than the seemingly obvious way of learning through experience. Baradat’s point on how that introduced the materialism and the want for improvement into politics was truly intriguing in the fact that it was pretty much a turning point for modern politics. The second chapter which talked about political attitudes and a way to look at them by putting on a political spectrum was something I had never read about before so it was an entirely new insight to me. One of the most profound parts of the spectrum was the fact that its organization was based upon the current status quo instead of set issues. This way might in fact be commonplace but as I had said before I don’t follow politics to a large extent so this was new in comparison to the constant times I had heard people classify political views and attitudes based upon the issues that mattered then. This spectrum shows the absolutely astounding ability of politics to change since its simplicity shows the amount of possibilities present. The article also includes spectrum examples that had been altered to show even more information like progressive to retrogressive change. The fact that the political spectrum can be used for any government to show how the same event is viewed in various terms is also very handy. For example when Baradat uses the example of labor strikes as an issue and plots where it would lie depending on the status quo of the nation makes for an intriguing comparison due to how much more leniency is taken in Great Britain when looking at strikes in comparison to how they are treated in Saudi Arabia. The organization of political attitudes based upon the status quo as well, was a great idea. I also like how his explanation of the attitudes was broad and he clarified about reasons why a person might fall into a specific attitude. As a person used to dealing with political parties created by issues this was an enlightening read. Overall despite a few disagreements with the article, it is not only informative about a very broad topic, it is captivating and well written on a topic known for being boring. It is a book like this that I would recommend to anyone interested in learning about political structure.
After reading the Baradat article, I feel somewhat more knowledgeable about political science. I thought it was kind of dry, but was somewhat more readable and engaging than the average text on political science. I thought it provided a thorough dissertation of a a couple of vitally important topics: ideologies and the spectrum of political attitudes.
In the first chapter, the selction discussed ideologies. It raised the key point that every modern political system attempts to mobilize its people to achieve goals that are important to it. To do this, they employ ideologies as a tool to accomplish this mobilization. Baradat then proceeds to discuss the source of ideology, then defines it. He does not provide his own opinion, but instead cites the definitions of a prestigious lineup of political scientists. These include such names as Antoine Louis Claude Destutt de Tracy, who coined the term, Karl Marx, Frederick Watkins, L.T. Sargent, Terrence Ball, and several others. While this provided a wider idea of the many different interpretations of the term that helped my understanding, I would have liked it better if a comprehensive overall definition had been provided to sum it up and give me a more exact idea of what it meant. Being presented with such a wide array of ideas did help give me an idea of how wide-ranging its meanings are, but it also left me a bit confused and wondering what I should take as an exact definition. I don't want to pick and choose; instead, i would rather have one definition that left me certain of the meaning. Also in this chapter, Baradat talks about the source of ideology, providing a solid analysis of its place in the modern world and how it has changed over the centuries. I was impressed with his deep yet succinct analysis and felt that I learned a lot from it. However, I had one issue. I thought that Baradat would have been better served by diving right into the definition, before he talked about the term in depth. While I was reading it, I felt my understanding suffered a little because I was not entirely clear on the meaning of the term yet. It generally helps, before you talk about a topic, to first explain what it is that you will be talking about. Nevertheless, I thought that the first chapter was quite informative.
I thought the second chapter was also interesting, although it got a little boring as it went along and probably should have been more succinct. I thought the most important part was the discussion on the spectrum of political attitudes. I thought Baradat did an excellent job of explaining the characteristics of each attitude and how they all related. I especially liked how he incorporated diagrams to illustrate these relationships. Baradat goes into extensive detail about each of the five positions: radical, liberal, moderate, conservative, and reactionary, and after explaining the overal spectrum, covers each one individually with detail. He doesn't stop there either, discussing specific issues and views of the different groups. He mostly discusses the different policies, like domestic and foreign policy, for each group. An example of this is the example of supply-side economics. That attention to detail is something I really liked about this section. I came out of it understanding it very well, even more so than I did after we discussed it in class.
In summary, Baradat does a very effective job in this article of breaking down the theory of ideologies and the political spectrum. I learned a lot from reading this article, and even though it was kind of dry and not really what I'm interested in, it was readable. There are some things I did not like about it, of course, but overall, I thought it was a well-written, educational article.
While it is indeed possess of various interesting propositions and pieces of information, my feelings with respect to Baradat’s evaluations of ideology and politics are ultimately quite mixed.
Baradat makes a variety of interesting statements and comparisons in his assessment of ideology. Baradat makes a very compelling argument as to the nature and properties of modern ideologies- his conception of ideology as a specific and unique product of the particular conditions of the Western world at the point of the Enlightenment (with all of the tumult, spiritual and social uncertainty, revolutions in thought and belief, etc. associated with aforementioned period) and beyond is certainly well-reasoned and explained, although I do not entirely agree with all of his claims and assumptions. Most notable of this would be his absolute division of ideology from philosophy and other previous religious and secular thought- I, on the other hand, perceive the attributes and functions of “ideology” as things that have naturally recurred throughout the history of civilization. Perceptions and sets of beliefs describing how society and government may best be designed and operated have, after all, existed since the dawn of civilization, and have been composed and promoted throughout the lives of countless individuals, societies, and institutions, eastern and western, classical and modern, religious and secular. The idea that “people can take active steps that will improve their lives”, that society might improved by such actions, or that an ideal form of society or government may be attained or aspired is fundamental to innumerable different beliefs and practices (some perhaps being more abstract and detached than others), such as the theories of Plato and other classical philosophers, the ideas of Confucius, the precepts and teachings of the Catholic Church. To classify “ideology” as some novel western phenomena seems preposterous to me- yes, there are obviously particular elements that tend to be common to the political philosophies that emerged as a result of and following the Enlightenment, but I hardly see the justification for defining so general and prevalent a term so specifically and arbitrarily.
I also find his reference to the views of “Americans” as depending more upon practical results than ideological beliefs and precedents as rather bizarre. After all, if this were the case, why would arguments pertaining to the sanctity of marriage, the constitution, human life, the “morality” of regulating or “infringing” upon private enterprise, property, and wealth etc. play such significant roles in modern political rhetoric and thought? Why do people care about the ideological or moral implications of “socialism” or “gay marriage” or any number of other topics rather than focusing primarily upon the logical potential applications, historical consequences, etc. of such matters? Baradat’s evaluation of the various modern conceptions and definitions of philosophy, such as Frederick Watkins and L.T. Sargent, provide valuable insights into the manner in which the concept of an ideology may be classified and applied as well as the means by which Baradat appears to have derived the five-fold definition that he promotes within his work. Likewise are his various descriptions of the beliefs of numerous different modern political thinkers, such as Karl Marx, Thomas Jefferson, and Karl Mannheim highly enlightening and interesting, as are the parallels he raises between their works and ideas (most notably between the ideas expounded upon by the Declaration of Independence and their relationship with those that Marx focuses on in the Communist Manifesto). Ultimately, Baradat’s views and evaluations of ideology provide some interesting, if sometimes peculiar, perspectives on a very important and fundamental concept.
Baradat’s bizarre treatise on the political spectrum, on the other hand, can be summed up in its entirety as, to quote a piece of commentary on a component of this section of Baradat’s work, “complete crap”. The introduction to this section was all that was ever necessary, and Baradat’s ensuing attempts to elaborate simply serve to adulterate his meaning and debase his entire work. Baradat initiates his work by establishing the fundamental definitions of each of the various general political categories addressed. Liberals seek significant progressive change, Radicals desire extreme change that conflicts considerably with the status quo, conservatives seek to slowly revise and fundamentally preserve the current order, reactionaries pursue regressionary policies, etc. His subsequent examples are useless and irrelevant in the extreme. This is because the entire spectrum is absolutely relative. One cannot reasonably make the broad assertion that conservatives are paranoid irrationalists or liberals idealistic rationalists. One cannot claim that fascism is fundamentally to the right and communism to the left. These may be true in context of specific groups and political systems in particular countries, but the actual definition of each group, as established by Baradat himself, merely describe how the views and ambitions of the relevant group or ideology relates to the established status quo of a given society. While Baradat’s periodic references to American politics only this serve to warp the reader’s conception of the political scale by cementing American standards, definitions, and states, which are by no means universally true and applicable. In the Russian Federation (or most of the former USSR or Eastern Bloc), for instance, traditional communists would constitute reactionaries, whereas groups that support the implementation of permutations of communism or socialism radically different from the old soviet implementation would constitute liberals or reactionaries. Likewise, those who seek to mesh fascist ideology with political tradition in an attempt to reconstruct the earlier political hegemonies and power of a country would constitute reactionaries, whereas others that are proponents of fascist Orwellian police states that would comprise absolute departures from any previously established mode of political practice or thought in that country, would be logically classified as radicals. Baradat attributes an emphasis on human rights to liberals and liberal practices, but is not acceptance of such rights an element of the social and political status quo in most industrialized nations? Does not their defense and development constitute conservatism?
Baradat, in essence, serves to define two absolutely conflicting perceptions of the political spectrum- one dependent simply upon the relationship of a given ideology to the status quo, and the other upon certain specific historical definitions and precedents for a given category. In addition to this, Baradat makes some rather preposterous assertions as to the nature of conservatives and liberals. For instance, he asserts that liberals are “rationalists” that believe in the tendency of humans to seek what is best and serve high principles, whereas Conservatives are generally “Irrationalists” that are highly pessimistic about human nature. This is a bizarre and ludicrous claim to make. After all, defense of the status quo and attempts to prevent rapid alteration can be, and, indeed, often are, borne out of a belief that the current system is the most logical and practical, or that revisions to it must be carefully evaluated through human reason so as to prevent politically and socially insalubrious disruption of the system through overly idealistic or irrational propositions. Likewise, a liberal might be very pessimistic about human nature and tendencies- the reforms proposed by such a party would be attempts to best mould the role of the government to compensate for this fact, to restrain negative human propensities, or to better human life as much as possible while keeping this fact into consideration. Indeed, it can be argued that this itself is present in modern American society- is not the purpose of restrictions on big business, firearm ownership, etc. to limit the capacity of individuals and groups, motivated by base human greed and malice, to harm society as a whole? And is not the American conservative belief in the value of laissez-faire economics, of the capacity of the people to decide for themselves, to exercise a great deal of individual freedom and independence from the government, etc. dependent upon a belief that humans are naturally capable of and inclined to do what is right for society? Even if this is not the case, his definition cannot at all be applied universally to all extant and possible conservative and liberal groups in all societies- such things will, as he himself illustrated with his comparison of Great Britain, Saudi Arabia, and the United States, vary enormously and are entirely dependent upon the society considered. Any deeper attempts to generally describe the essential properties and associated ideologies of “liberals” or “conservatives” or “reactionaries” are pointless and intellectually repugnant. Indeed, even placed purely in context of the United States, there exist so many permutations of “liberal” and “conservative” and so many entities that do not necessarily fit into the traditional definition of either, that Baradat’s definitions are found significantly wanting. In short, not only is Baradat’s assessment of the political spectrum riddled with flaws and errors, but the content of the chapter is itself fundamentally irrational given the context in which it is presented (for while references to American politics abound, the chapter introduces itself not so much as a specific evaluation of matters American but rather as a general classification of essential terms and categories, in which capacity it fails spectacularly).
Ultimately, Baradat’s assessments of political ideologies and attitudes, while certainly containing some very interesting pieces of information, are lacking and flawed in many, many respects. While I can bring myself to respect some of his views, others seem simply seem bizarre, irrational, and inconsistent.
Webster defines ideology as “thinking or theorizing of an idealistic, abstract, or impractical nature; fanciful speculation.” Baradat, however, would have never agreed with this strict definition of such a complex idea. I felt that this author brought up many interesting and thought-provoking points. The first point that I agreed with was when Baradat stated that a main point of ideology is that it is used to provide hope to the masses. Ideologies cannot thrive without the element of hope. It is essential that people understand how this ideology can provide more order or structure within their particular society and how it can provide a more desirable future for its citizens. One major part of Baradat’s five part definition is that “All ideologies provide an interpretation of the present and a view of a desired future. The anticipated future is usually portrayed as materially better than the present and is thought to be attainable within a single generation.” This “desirable future” is so desirable because it is thought to be able to better the lives of the people living in this society at this particular time. No one is willing to follow an ideology that does not guarantee them results within their lifetime. However, there was another major point of Baradat’s that I did not agree with. The section that discussed the beliefs of the French noble and scholar, Antoine Louis Claude Destutt de Tracy stated that supernatural or spiritual phenomena plays no part in the formation of ideas. I strongly disagree with this statement because these unearthly beliefs can be some of the largest influences within a person’s life. It is impossible to say that empirical learning is the only factor that will ultimately lead to formations of ideologies. Societies do not always entirely base this “desirable future” solely upon social and political conditions; many elements play a very important role in ideologies. It was also extremely interesting how Baradat compared philosophy with ideology. All of the characteristics that he mentioned were extremely accurate. One of the most important differences that Baradat presented was that philosophies encourage introspection whereas ideologies do not. Ideologists do not typically encourage their followers to analyze their theories or viewpoints. Philosophers, however, are the ones that frequently push their followers to observe their own feelings and viewpoints and to act upon these emotions. Overall, I truly enjoyed reading this Baradat article and it presented a wide range of interesting viewpoints that were incredibly accurate and significant.
I was quite intrigued by Baradat's explanation of ideologies and politics. As I am not a person who tends to debate the topic of politics, it was interesting to see how each political standpoint was explained.
I believe that Baradat is a thought provoking writer, where he supports his views of political society with examples from the past and present, which makes it easier for the reader to comprehend what points he is making about each political group. His writing educates and provokes the mind into thought over what political views the reader might have based on controversial issues. The evidence used to show examples of a liberal v. conservative view, or conservative v. conservative, etc., truly helps comprehend what standpoint each side takes and what characteristics of that standpoint cause it to belong to a political view. I was very intrigued by Baradat's writing style, as I could compare my own opinions on how should the issues of abortion or the national economy be handled, and how each contrasting politcal group would handle it.
The first chapter, as a discussion on the origin and history of ideologies, was interesting to say the least. I believe Baradat explained what an ideology is well, as he can provide concrete examples of ideologies throughout history. As there are many examples in history of change in society to better that society whether it be by slight change or complete reform, it can be difficult to truly explain. Baradat explains these ideologies through examples of change in society during the Enlightenment, and how ideologies called for collective efforts to create change in the world.
Much of Baradat's discussion lies within his views of the spectrum of politics. Ranging from radical to reactionary, he provides a detailed explanation of how each group wants to change the status quo, if at all. Baradat first explains the radicals, and their approach to change. As this group of the political spectrum contains one of the extremes, he chooses to show how they would change society, and how drastic those changes would be. He then moves from left to right in the spectrum, proceeding to liberals, moderates, conservatives, and finally reactionaries. I personally liked his approach to explaining the moderates, as there is not truly a line separating liberals and conservatives. It is difficult to write about the moderates, as the people within this group will always sway to one side or another. Baradat really seems to want to make a series of points in his debate of liberals v. conservatives. Every issue in regards to past and current society can have a conservative and a liberal view. The question is how to distinguish between the two. One example that I thought was intriguing was how capitalism was introduced as being opposed to the old system of mercantalism, so capitalism was a liberal idea as it was a change to the status quo. In today's society, however, capitalism is the status quo, so it would be considered a conservative idea. It is interesting how Baradat can provoke thought in the reader by showing how one view is not necessarily liberal or conservative, but can interchange as time goes on and the status quo changes. Overall, I was very intrigued and impressed with Baradat's writing, as it allowed me to better understand a very debatable topic.
Baradat is an amazing author. It takes a lot of skill to be able to write about something so dry and still keep the reader’s interest. With most readings of this nature, I always feel as though I have to force myself to continue and find myself having to go back and reread paragraphs due to a lack of interest and therefore focus.
In particular, I love his organization. He constantly brings up an idea, lists details about the idea, gives examples of the idea, and links the idea to previous ideas (in that order). There is not much to say about the idea itself (it is simply the topic he must write about). However, much can be said about the presentation of details, examples, and references.
What I enjoy most about the way he presents details is how understandable they are. With many authors, the text goes into extreme detail to the point where one finds him or herself reading the same information over and over again to the point that nothing is absorbed. However, Baradat found the perfect balance between having too much detail, and not getting the message across.
I also found the choice of examples to be amazing. Using commonly known figures, such as comparing the declaration of independence to the communist manifesto or highlighting Martin Luther King and Mohandas Gandhi as radicals greatly enhanced my ability to understand what Baradat was attempting to say and my ability to relate the ideas to my own life and knowledge.
Finally, the connections between ideas allowed for an even deeper understanding of each topic. I loved how Baradat explained one topic thoroughly, explained another, and then compared them to highlight key similarities and differences between them, such as that of radicals and reactionaries. In doing so, it was much easier for me to understand exactly what he was attempting to teach.
On a side note, I also appreciated how he used different definitions from different perspectives (such as the definition of ideology from seven different perspectives) to minimize personal bias on each subject that he was talking about. He even noted to be aware of personal bias at certain points because “we” grew up with it. Such care of sticking to fact over opinion greatly emphasizes the professionalism of this author and I greatly enjoyed reading his works.
After reading Baradat’s work, I found it interesting in its completely logical way at looking at political ideology and the basis of such believes. Especially during a time when political ideologies has stratified and polarized the national government, it is essential to look at the fundamental basis of political ideology and philosophy. His definition of the political spectrum was vastly different from what I imagined it to be. Especially being in a highly political year, much of our definitions of conservatism and liberalism has been marred and misinterpreted by the media. Baradat was also able to make political talks interesting and understandable unlike the usual political talks that tend to confuse rather than inform. I was surprised to find my own beliefs in what he said about different political ideologies. What made Baradat’s work easier to understand was that he gave many examples, either from history or hypothetical examples from everyday life. I especially found the example of an African American buying a home and the discussion over property rights versus equality very interesting. It really shows the complexity of defining political positions when it comes to personal and property rights. However, I disagree with Baradat in that liberals tend to preserve personal rights and conservatives tend to preserve property rights. Baradat himself says that there is a huge difference in the beliefs of conservatives depending on the status quo.
Baradat was able to distinguish and carefully explain what he believed constituted different aspects of the political spectrum as well as his perception of how ideology differs from philosophy. Personally, I never saw much of a difference between ideology and philosophy because I had always thought the two were intertwined. Baradat clearly defines ideology as well as provide examples of differences in the definition of ideology from different authors. What I found particularly interesting was his example of the Declaration of Independence and the Communist Manifesto. Though the two are extremely different and advocate for two completely different causes, they are strikingly similar. It was bizarre for me at first to see any similarity between a document that advocate for independence and a document that advocates for communism. Yet, both argue for the personal rights of people and equality and condemn the uneven distribution of power within a government. Both call for action to oppose their respective governments, but the outcome of these documents differs dramatically. Marx’s quote on page12, “The philosophers have only interpreted the world, the point is to change it” really struck me as the truly definitive difference between ideology and philosophy. While philosophy only set out to establish beliefs and interpretations of different aspects of life, ideology, which often times is influence by personal philosophy, transforms different beliefs into policies to change society and government.
Lastly, what I found Baradat’s political spectrum very interesting. Though I thought the spectrum was too American in that his definition of the right and left does not really reflect the beliefs of all conservatives and liberals, I think Baradat really tried, and succeed to some extent, to clearly define the five different stages of the political spectrum in an objective and analytical way. The most interesting section, which was in turn the shortest section, was on the motivations of political position. Baradat claims that in this era, youth tend to be more conservative than any other age group. However, especially in America, there seems to be a definitively liberal generation of youth. Baradat does not answer why this is the case, and only goes on to say that fifty-year olds are more vested in the country because they have a stake in society. Yet, youth does have a stake in society and there is an increasing interest in politics among youth today because the youth are the future of this country and do have a stake in society because they are already in a part of society and will grow into a even greater role in society as they grow up. Also, I found his argument that liberals have to have a high tolerance for disorder in order to be psychologically suited for interesting. I think this is true everywhere in the world because liberals do ask to change, and change usually means disorder from the orderliness of the status quo. I think Baradat took a unique look at the motivations because most analysts would look into social and economic background of a person to deduct the political motivations. However, Baradat argues that it is the nature of a person that truly defines his or her political stance.
Overall, I think Baradat was able to effectively study political ideology and was very rational in his analysis.
Political Ideology, written by Leon P. Baradat, discusses the author's dissection of ideology and describes the term in relation to social, economic, and political circumstances. In a world that continues to slowly settle down after a political frenzy like the Presidential elections, it is crucial to understand the way in which politics had come to be. Using precise language that is not too hard to comprehend, readers receive a basic lesson on the political spectrum and how society can be divided by a left-right system. The author, a renowned writer of political science, succeeds in his purpose to educate. Main points of the first two chapters can be understood without confusion. Baradat draws from parts of history and the present day to relate his presentation of today's current political ideologies to his readers. Overall, his work is insightful and informational.
Chapter 1, titled simply as "Ideology", discusses the term, its definition that seems to be ambiguous, and the sources that could give rise to a new ideology. He leads the discussion by immediately admitting that there were different definitions of ideology; even so, he states that ideology has to meet five requirements. Ideology, powerful when focused towards the masses, refers to a political set of beliefs that provide a view of the present and desired future. With ideology there comes a plan that is stated in simplistic terms to achieve a better future. With ideology there comes a plan that is stated in simplistic terms to achieve a better future. Baradat mentions names like Karl Marx and Frederick Watkins to present the varying definitions of ideology. Baradat's language is systematic where he discusses a general topic then gradually narrows his scope to more specifics. He also uses analogies. He acknowledges success in one area as a harbinger of the failure of another. For example, when discussing the sources of ideology, economic success is cited with the negative impact on society. Industrialization, though, indeed, brought wealth to the higher classes, also enlarged the gap between the wealthy and less wealthy. Fundamental change in beliefs or anything appears to confuse and irritate the people. This still applies to today. Baradat explores "ideology" from all sides and remains unbiased in his definitions. Though Political Ideologies was published in 1984, it is amazing how the term ideology is still considered ambiguous among the societies of 2008.
The clarity in Baradat's explanation on ideology can be seen as a strength. He starts first by defining the topic to be discussed. Next, he discusses the possible causes of ideologies, followed by the views from scholars. He concludes the chapter by comparing and contrasting ideology with philosophy. All of this is easy to follow; for a student, who knows nothing about political business, the work is extremely helpful in understanding.
Baradat moves on to the political spectrum in Chapter 2. Like the previous chapter, he informs the reader by systematically stating his points. He discusses the parts of the spectrum. Radicals and liberals are leftists whereas conservatives and reactionaries are rightists. His effort to separate liberals and conservations was effectively clear and so were his other descriptions. For example, he dedicates a great deal of pages starting from page 25. Though, it seems like Baradat tends to lean more towards the liberal side than conservatism. His little bit about the changing spectrum is also correct; the views of one person can change their position on the spectrum even if that same person was still the same. He later uses Reagan as an example, also proving another way in which he connects the past to the present. Diagrams that were so graciously provided by the author allows reader to go beyond processing words and let them make connections through visual aid.
However, when discussing the four things necessary to be known about policy changes, Baradat makes a statement about the use of violence. According to him, "violence is sued by people at practically every point of the political spectrum", and such violence include death penalty. Here he describes violence as physical approaches. Later on, Baradat, on page 39, tells readers that state that instead of using warfare, liberals prefer to apply reasoning to solve aggression. His previous statement was a bit of a generalization. He should have been clearer and should have given an objective definition as to not confuse some readers.
His faults are minor, and this proves that Baradat has mostly given a well written document. A person cannot spot a Liberal or a Conservative on the street by reading Baradat’s writing, but he does assist the readers by giving a better understanding of the motivations of the different political groups. Ideology is clearly a topic that Baradat is well-versed in; this was portrayed by his use of easy and fluent sentences that connected his ideas. He is sure to draw lines when discussing two commonly known concepts like ideology and philosophy. Therefore, Baradat successfully achieves his goal to educate the society by writing Political Ideologies.
felt the Baradat article was very interesting, and not as bad as I thought it would be to read. Not having a very in depth political background, it was refreshing to read something that explained the aspects of politics so easily. His spectrum of political ideology is very interesting, placing radicals on the left and reactionaries on the right. In his first chapter, he speaks in depth on the definition of ideology, and how it differs from philosophy. I enjoyed reading this because this is not something that I would typically read. He showed how ideology was used to affect the masses, using examples in the Communist Manifesto and The Declaration of Independence. It was very interesting to read how he would relate two things that you would normally never find being together in the same context. He showed how ideology was geared towards the masses, made simple so that the common reader could easily understand. He showed how the minds of Hitler and Marx were linked in the fact that they wanted to change the status quo, and set out on their quest of enforcing their political ideology. In Chapter 2, he describes in depth the political spectrum. The terms "liberal" and "conservative" are thrown about some much lately, and never knowing what they meant, I was oblivious to their meaning in a political society. Much of what is on the news today is about the conquests of these political groups over one another. Like it was said in class, it is clear that the United State’s itself is very conservative in that it does not openly house the radical and reactionary minds in its governing body. The fact that there are no members of the Communist Party in the U.S. Congress shows how the society we live in is very conservative. In reading this, it opened my eyes to many of the issues that we as Americans face today, and in choosing the right candidate to lead us on the quest. His many comparisons in his writings make it easier to relate towards what he is writing. Again, reading this piece really opened my eyes to the kind of society we live in today, and the political ideology that our country was founded on.
When I was first handed the lengthy packet and given the assignment to read the first two chapters, I immediately dreaded even beginning to read, and expected a long boring article about something that I would hardly need to know. But I was pleasantly surprised at how straightforward and interesting it was, and actually enjoyed reading while learning a great deal of information.
My favorite thing about this author’s writing style was that his explanations were to the point and weren’t bogged down with extra information and unnecessary details. The points he makes about ideology as well as the different political perspectives were extremely valuable to read about. Although I had a vague idea of the political terms and the general views of the people who call themselves liberals, moderates, etc., this article was extremely helpful in giving not only understandable definitions but also in-depth examples to clarify exactly what the author was trying to explain. Giving details such as the views of Martin Luther King and Mahatma Gandhi being that of pacifists made it clearer and more interesting than just a definition of a pacifist alone. Also, Baradat included a short bit on liberalism in the enlightenment, and mentioned some historical figures of the scientific revolution, which made the article tie in to what we have been learning in class. Baradat’s information was valuable and written in such a way that made it very interesting as a reader. It included just enough details and examples to clarify the main points, yet not detract from the article’s effectiveness with excessive information.
Something else I noticed about Baradat’s writing was that all the information was very factual. There was little or no bias in any of his main points, even though the political topics he covered can be very controversial. I think this is an important quality in an author’s writing because it presents the reader with just the facts and allows them to form their own opinion from them with no outside influences.
The only thing I can really criticize about Baradat’s piece was his definition of ideology. It was pretty unclear, especially for any reader who has never heard of it or seen examples of it before. Although he explains that there really isn’t an exact definition for the term, and it has been debated for a long time about what it truly is, it would have made the first chapter easier to understand if a better definition was given.
Overall, I really found these two chapters as well as the author very interesting to read and I learned much more than I had originally expected.
Honestly, before being assigned this blog response, my initial impression of Baradat was that he was simply a historical, non fictional writer. In doing so, I accepted all of the information he presented as true and synthesized it into knowledge without any questions asked. Looking back on the first few chapters of his book “Political Ideologies,” I gained a new appreciation of Baradat’s writing because I realized that he explained his subjects in each of the chapters with a wide variety of support, while still keeping an entertaining style. Though I agreed with the majority of what Baradat wrote, there were still some areas of his work that called for criticizing.
I found the first chapter on Ideology, quite profound, thus subduing my interest. I did however, appreciate Baradat’s wide degree of definitions of ideology, from Karl Marx’s which states that theology is “nothing more than a fabrication used by a particular group of people to justify themselves,” to Frederick Watkins who suggests that ideologies are always opposed to the status quo. When Baradat gave his own definition however, I felt that the last 8 pages I had just read could have been thrown out the window, for his own definition summed up all the qualities of ideology that had been discussed before. I also found his comparison of the U.S. Declaration of Independence and the Communist Manifesto to be lacking in purpose, because one can pretty much say that all government essays introducing a new form of government are “virtually identical.”
Chapter 2 regarding the political spectrum was definitely the most interesting chapter for me to read. For one thing, I already felt that I had some prior knowledge on the subject due to my Civics class and the political terms he used were quite familiar to me. What Baradat did however, was take these terms, radical, moderate, liberal, conservative, and reactionary, and explain their characteristics in much further depth then my prior knowledge. Each individual description had a common theme of addressing to what extent each term what dissatisfied with the status quo, and to what extent and in what ways they wanted to alter the status quo. One part of the chapter that especially stood out to me was when Baradat explained how people on opposite ends of the spectrum can favor the same change. I found in very insightful how he stated that though largely a liberal stance, some conservatives have supported abortions because it would lower the number of unwanted children among the lower class, thus reducing welfare costs in the long run. I also enjoyed the chart on page 38 because I had never known that the status quo in Britain was Conservative, while America’s was in the middle of Liberal. I always thought we were Moderate, but I guess not.
The Evolution of Democratic Theory, Chapter 4, immediately presented itself as a dull chapter. Baradat effectively explained the history and origins of democracy and went on to talk about the social contract theory, another topic I had learned in Civics. I had previously thought Thomas Hobbes made up the theory, but in reality Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean Rousseau were all social contract theorists. All according to Baradat supported that at one time no government existed on this earth and that people formed government for the greater good of their race. The explanations of the three theorists were sometimes a little too in depth, however the beliefs of all three could be easily applied to America today. The one that stood out the most was John Locke’s belief that people should only be allowed to accumulate the amount of wealth that they could get use out of. In America today, this is one of the key issues that we are facing and debating on right now and I found it extremely interesting that a man hundreds of years ago could have ideas that would remain contemporary even in this day and age. Even though I would not consider it casual reading by any means, I surprisingly enjoyed Baradat’s work and I appreciate the amount of knowledge I gained in subjects I had only previously dabbled in.
While reading the first few chapters of Baradat’s Political Ideologies I found myself having mixed reactions to the information that he presents. My mixed views come in how I reacted to chapters one and two.
When reading chapter 1 I found myself vastly interested on Baradat’s take on political ideology. I enjoyed reading his sentiments on the source of ideology. I found it interesting that he views ideology as stemming from knowledge and the development of science, which he spends several pages discussing. I thought that his connection of the fact that people challenging conformity (accept only the knowledge it was presented with and not seek solutions to their own problems) within society lead to the development of science and technology, which in turn lead to the many problems resulting from developments over time. These problems of course span a wide range of topics including social, environmental, economic, and eventually political. From the need to solve such problems he states that political ideology was developed. He thus attributes all problems experienced today to the Industrial Revolution: “The political ideologies described in later chapters may be viewed as attempts to find a political accommodation to the social and economic conditions created by the Industrial Revolution.”(pg 6). I also found it interesting how he stated no clear cut definition of the word ideology but instead gave the reader an adequate understanding of the word by presenting overviews of several ideologies from many political scientists and their views on ideology itself. After comparing and contrasting the many views on political ideology he is then able to identify 5 major characteristics that he expresses to both state his own opinion and increase the reader’s general understanding. I was therefore extremely interested in the material discussed by Baradat in his first chapter.
Despite this response to his writing and views in chapter 1, I found myself reacting quite differently to the material in chapter 2. In particular, I discovered that I largely disagreed with his view on progressive change (political view held by conservative, moderate, liberal, and radical groups have “no intrinsic value at all.” (pg 16). I felt it wrong for him to name progressive change worthless without first acknowledging how it has helped humanity in the past. Progressive change in technology has saved lives, increased production of food, and helped the economy blossom with more efficient production. Progressive change as stated by Baradat is one that looks towards the future for a “change in the status quo to something new and different.” (pg 16). Often times this new and different technology or knowledge saves lives or betters conditions for people all over the world. It is therefore unfair for Baradat to state that progressive change is worthless, when he did not acknowledge the opposite views on the subject or back his claims up from factual sources and other ideologists. Another statement which I disagreed with was his statement saying that in the chart all reactionary groups reguardless of their placement on his chart all feel the same dissatisfaction with their government. I feel that this is wrong because by doing this Baradat is essentially creating and fueling a political stereotype that groups a large number of people together. A group of such a vast number of people can not possibly have that many people believing firmly in the same exact ideology without questioning any of it or a variation of reactionary political philosophy. It is therefore clear that although expressing positive feelings in chapter 1, my feelings towards chapter 2 are drastically different.
After reading the first 40 or so pages of Baradat’s writing I find him relatively interesting and engaging. He is obviously a good writer but he is also surprisingly captivating for a philosophical writer. His ideas and writings on ideology and philosophy are quite logical and thoughtful. It is important for a writer such as Baradat to be engaging because that is the only way he will be able to get his full message across. In the case of historical writers especially, it is very important that they are fascinating and appealing to readers as to make them continue on. It is more interesting than most textbooks because the ideas are much better thought out and are more
The way Baradat dove into the historical aspects of ideology and its origins were interesting to read. His discussion of the origin of the term ideology and what ideology actually is understood to be was intriguing. His inclusion of many famous ideologists and their views on ideology were very interesting; the ideas of Louis Claude Destutt de Tracey, Karl Marx, Frederick Watkins, and David Ingersoll were included.
However, what I think is the most interesting part comes in chapter 2. This is Baradat’s discussion of the political spectrum and political attitudes. His discussion includes the connection between the “so-called”; radicals, liberal, moderate, conservative, and reactionary which are all relative in the world. These terms are different in each country and society because the society’s norm or “status quo” is different. This connects to the class discussion we had about America’s Liberals and Conservatives, and how these parties’ views might both be considered very conservative in another country like France. Baradat also used very clear examples to explain his thinking; he used famous figures like Mohandas Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. as examples of radical thinking. This allows the reader to comprehend the broad spectrum of things.
Baradat’s arguments were very remarkable and interesting, however, I do disagree with a few of his statements. Particularly the fact that he was biased in some of his arguments, but he did present his views clearly and in an organized fashion. Overall I think that Baradat has produced a very clear and thought-provoking piece of literature, it presents a views of many ideologists as well as the views of Baradat himself. The part on the political spectrum was extremely fascinating; it showed how conservatives and liberals and the radicals and the reactionaries all fit together and how they all are relative to each other. This was an interesting topic and because Baradat wrote in such a easy style to understand it enhanced the piece.
The Baradat readings are very intersecting to read, mostly because they present a puzzling word in a very simple manner. One of the finer parts of Baradat’s articles are his explanations of the different components and the way he helps the reader to understand them. For example, at the end of Chapter One, Baradat compares ideology to philosophy, a common study that most people are familiar with and incorrectly interchange with ideology. By telling the reader what ideology was not (i.e. profound, singly addressed, etc.), Baradat was actually helping the reader find out what it was. This was a good strategy to use and I commend him for it because it cleared up the minuscule differences that set the two terms apart. Baradat was not all good in Chapter One, though. He seemed repetitive with his restatement of government positions being held exclusively by the elite at the time. However, this is a very small negative of his writing
The beginning of Baradat’s second chapter read more like that of a Civics class.
He began with the different parts of the political spectrum (or range) and explanations of them (radical, liberal, moderate, conservative, and reactionary). I thought this section could have been made more concise so that the reader would not have to go to 3 or 4 more examples explaining the same thing. Not to say his explanations, were no good, they were excellent. They were in depth and spot on with the analysis of the different groups. As a liberal, I found myself agreeing with most of the generalities he made about liberals. For example, the ideas that liberals are dissatisfied with the government and are willing to change it through the legal way. Again, in this chapter, Baradat helped emphasize one group by comparing it to another. In this case, he describes Conservatives by comparing them to their opposites, the liberals. In this way, Baradat showed the reader that the difference was not so much in the change each wanted for the government, but that it really billed down to the fact the conservatives are more pessimistic about humans and their abilities than liberals are. This was an important fact in the debate of liberals versus conservatives that I have noted in the past and thought it was interesting that Baradat brought it up.
The most interesting thing of all in Baradat’s writings, though, is his discussion of human rights and the extent that some are willing to go for it. In essence, that is what Baradat is going for in the writing as it is comes up in different parts of the reading. It is mentioned here “…ideology asks for people to take definite steps to improve their lives. Unlike philosophy, ideology invariably demands that people change the world to suit themselves,” (11). And here “But, the leftist argues…the fact that all people are human- equally human- should be the condition that predisposes our conduct towards one another” (25). These quotes demonstrate how betterment of human life is a topic that Baradat has a great interest in, probably because it is a major tenet of ideology. Either way, it is a topic mentioned frequently in the reading.
Overall, the Baradat readings have been the most interesting thus far. I was able to
read it with more fascination because of my interest in politics and it was nice to see how ideology was developed and how it has been affecting governments for years.
After reading the first few chapters of Baradat’s Political Ideologies my initial impression was that it was exceptional writing. Though I may not have agreed with everything that Baradat said, I still felt that writing itself was very well written. His effective writing style allowed me to follow him and stay focused on whatever topic he was discussing. His straightforward language forced me to absorb the information that he was trying to convey.
I believe that part of the reason that his writing style is so effective is because he constantly makes connections between events in history/historical ideologies and the world today. This allows readers, including myself, to connect to the information being displayed and, therefore, better understand it.
I especially enjoyed reading chapter one which I found to be both informative and abundant in information. Baradat discussed the various definitions for the term “ideology” and how it’s important to understand the thinking behind each of them. Some may argue that the first chapter was very wish-washy, not providing any solid definition but I felt it was very helpful to learn that “political scientists cannot agree on whether ideology is a positive, negative, or neutral feature of modern society” (7). Instead of sticking to one definition that may provoke a lot of controversy, Baradat gave a background on each of them.
Chapter 2 definitely had a different feel than Chapter 1. I felt that chapter 2 went into greater detail, maybe more than necessary, and showed a bit of Baradat’s bias side. As a liberal myself, I must even admit that Baradat seemed to be slightly bias toward liberals. But one thing that stood out to me that I really liked was that Baradat made it a point to explain that just because you may strongly consider yourself to be on one end of the political ideology spectrum, you may differ in certain beliefs and may jump to another location on the spectrum for a certain topic. Though I do feel that the article goes into more detail and elaboration then necessary, the information that he is trying to convey is very reasonable, and interesting.
Overall I commend Baradat for a successful book on the Political Ideologies. It really held my interest because I am so interested in politics it was easy to read and actually enjoy. Though Chapter 1 definitely outweighed chapter 2, I feel that all and all he created an effective piece of writing.
In my opinion Leon P. Baradat is a very intelligent and impressive writer. He was able to write about a topic like Ideology and make it reasonable and interesting. He used many examples to catch the reader’s attention. Before going into the depth of the article I was apprehensive and expecting it to sound like a lecture, but it was totally the opposite. I was surprised to see that I was actually able to comprehend the material and it was making sense to me. The main reason was that Baradat gives many examples from both history and our day to day life.
He talks about how before the modern era, people were forced to do what they were told by their spiritual and temporal superiors. He mentions how ordinary people were not allowed to participate in the political system. He says that Ideologies are among the major tools used by modern governments to mobilize the masses. He also mentions that knowledge was meant to be revealed by a superior wisdom. I do not really agree with this statement because one can only gain knowledge by learning own their own and getting help from scholars but not necessarily someone who is more “superior”. The meaning of the word Ideology is often debated. Political figures cannot seem to agree if ideology is negative positive or a neutral feature of a modern society. He gives an example of Karl Marx, who believed that ideology was nothing more than participation used be a particular group of people who needed to justify themselves. He talks about L.T. Sargent who believes that ideologies are based on the value systems of various societies. Baradat says that ideology is a political term, but it can be applied to other contexts. According to him it contains views of the present and a vision of the future.
He calls ideology different from philosophy. He says that philosophy is profound and deals with the world with a lot of detail, whereas ideology is uncomplicated and shallow. Ideology is addressed to huge numbers of people rather than to an individual. It asks people to transform themselves. “People are to change themselves in order to be better and to modify the environment around them”. In his other article he defines progressive change and regressive change with a lot of details and examples. He says that political change is fundamental to any society. He also describes radicals and liberals with depth and mentions their strong and weak points to help the reader grasp a better understanding of the difference between the two. Radicals are people who are strongly dissatisfied with the society as it is and want a change. Liberals are not as dissatisfied with the society though and they support the basic features of the society.
Basically I was not at all bored while reading Bradat’s articles because he knows how to keep a reader attached by giving relevant examples and using language that is easy to understand and not as complex.
As a person who gets his news from The Daily Show, I felt that Baradat was truly well read and explained very thoroughly political terms that are often thrown around in politics.
Baradat’s first chapter examines the idea of an ideology. This to me was VERY interesting. This is because in history classes we always learn how one man’s ideas influence people and what their ideology to the masses were, but we would never examine what an ideology was. Baradat’s descriptions of ideologies seem fundamental to understand the nature of change and any type of appeal to the masses. However, the most interesting part of this chapter was the striking similarities between a revered document in this country The Declaration of Independence and the “evil” socialist Communist Manifesto. It seems like throughout history, there really was a pattern of the 5 characteristics of an ideology Baradat talks about. Another interesting part about Chapter 1, is Baradat’s idea of how the industrial revolution is still continuous and is in a cybernetics age today. Having the knowledge attained from this first chapter, I feel that it causes me to view history a little differently now.
Baradat’s second chapter on the Spectrum of Political Attitudes was a lot more speculation and stereotyping than a thorough recognition of patterns in history like the first chapter. His analysis of change seems to relate very much so to Election 08 where the Democratic Party’s nominee Barack Obama was running on the message of change. Likewise, Obama is branded by his republican colleagues as the most liberal senator. Thus, it was interesting to see an introspection of what change was and what type of change there were, and likewise, what is the status quo. His explanation of why liberals are often seen as less patriotic compared to a conservative is because liberals are further away from the status quo and thus “find ourselves in opposition to society”. I also felt that it was important to differentiate between classical liberalism and contemporary liberalism as he did. This is because some parts of classical liberalism such as market freedom can be attributed to so called conservatives of today. Baradat’s description of the entire spectrum is perfectly adequate but his descriptions of a conservative seems troubling to me. This is because I never thought the Fox News conservative propaganda machine actually distrusted reason as much as they appear to do so. As much as I often dislike conservatives, his assumption of their reasoning and justification is somewhat exaggerated and flawed. His comment saying the right is elitist is absolutely hilarious because of how Obama, clearly standing on the left, is always labeled one. It was nice to see, finally, an explanation of how liberals and conservatives differ in economic policies.
Baradat’s analysis on the evolution of the democratic theory is also very interesting. This is because it can be clearly seen that America was built on these ideologies that he talks about. I appreciated how Baradat examined the idea of democracy stemming from Plato to the enlightenment whereas government’s rights where thoroughly debated. His analysis of these characters such as Hobbes, Locke, and Rosseau was however a bit simplified. His examination provided me with ideas that people often misunderstood or sometimes not realize existed. After reading about these figures beforehand, I felt that he could have easily gone into a more in depth analysis of their positions and even their background to explain why they felt that way. Without a doubt, one can clearly see that ideas such as property rights, collective concerns, and popular sovereignty originated from this time period. Another interesting point to me was what seemed as very liberal in this time: individual economic freedom is now somewhat conservative.
Overall, I learnt a lot from Baradat and feel that political science should be a subject that everyone, not only Americans, are well versed in because it is crucial to understanding one’s rights societal and economically.
I thought that Baradat has an amazing talent for writing about political based terminology and ideas and presenting them in a manner in which it is easy to digest and relate to. My sister has read the book before in her college classes and has referred back to it numerous times, and if my sister can easily read it and enjoy it although she has a hatred for politics, then anyone could thoroughly enjoy it, as I did, but I am very much in love with politics.
What I did not like was that the author gives his opinion in so many places. I think it is good for an author to state his opinion and explain it to people, but not in a book that is an introduction to a topic. However, he did not attack ideologies that were not his own. Baradat clearly explains what ideology is and the political spectrum which was a better explanation than what I got in civics, but also the author brings economic, political and philosophical issues in a logical way. In the process, it clarifies left/right labels and dismisses many of the myths that the general public has because of AM radio.
Baradat's thesis covers what ideology is (which was not as interesting as the other chapter but I kept on trucking through it) and the complete political spectrum by explaining each type and providing examples for each. I do agree with his explanations about the conservatives, although many have been displeased with this. Baradat calls conservatives out as religious, which is very true because when learning civics, conservatives believe the government should be involved in personal issues such as abortion, stem cell research, gay marriage, and many others. Most of those personal issues are religious, so there is an apparent marriage between conservatives and religion which has not changed and will not change for a while. That has not changed much, as shown through the last election because the Republicans lost because they were too conservative, therefore they must move to the middle to keep up with the people. He also goes into depth about the differences of liberals; new and old, which helps the masses understand what government is and the fundamentals of it, which is hard to do and I think he pulled it off gracefully. He also showed that conservatives and liberals are not all that different, which is true, because they are just polar opposites of each other. For example Liberals want change through legal systems, especially for human rights, while Conservatives want more control of human rights through government.
In today's culture, I have found that most people are lead astray about the meaning of conservatism and liberalism because they get their impressions through the media; being neutral CNN, Liberal MSNBC, or Conservative FOX News. These chapters chase away all the legends formulated by the AM radio conservatives and the politically-correct totalitarians.
I found Baradat‘s work intriguing. Because of my growing interests towards politics as a result of this past election, Baradat’s writing was a pleasure to me to read. I found the spectrum of political attitudes quite interesting. He describes the spectrum as radical, liberal, moderate, conservative, and reactionary. He gives examples of figures in history that have each been labeled to a different part of the spectrum, such as Karl Marx, Benito Mussolini, Martin Luther King Jr., Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon, and others. Being towards the conservative side myself, I did not like how he showed bias towards the liberals and bashed the conservatives. He mentions that conservatives did not care about human equality, had “less faith that liberals”, and described their intensions as “animalistic impulses”. While I disliked the bias, I fell that Baradat did a great job in concepts and values behind each positions on the spectrum and each positions opinions on the status quo, for
I also like how Baradat gave many examples of what ideology meant to different people. It gave the readers many different perspectives to view and have opinions on. The descriptions were not just one man’s ideology, but others too that would be appealing to the public.
Overall, I fell that Baradat taught me about political science and all the different views on what ideology would be best for a nation. If everybody was exposed to the many different aspects of politics, the world could be a better place than it is today.
I found Baradat’s writing somewhat interesting, especially some parts of the reading. However, there are some parts where I believe he gets bogged down with information that is unnecessary. He sometimes gives too many views or opinions on an issue or topic. Personally, when I am reading an article like this, I want to see a concrete view that is followed throughout the reading and elaborated upon, not a lot of ideas splattered here and there. For instance, when attempting to define ideology, Baradat states several thesises about the topic. He gives tells you several different approaches or views on ideology and how many historians or historical figures have attempted to define it. Instead of giving me 5 or 6 possible definitions, I would have like to see him give the reader one definition that he thought was the most accurate definition and one that would most pertain to the rest of his writing.
Despite the extra information Baradat includes, I thought the writing was still very informative. Baradat is clearly very knowledgeable about political science and I learned many things from the article. His interpretation of the ideology vs. philosophy and the political spectrum not only gave me new information, but showed me opinions that I had previously never thought of.
Baradat’s writing on the subject of political ideology is and interesting piece of work that approaches the topic of political theory from a position unknown to most people. Rather than focusing exclusively on the political divisions in the United States right now, as almost all people who comment on politics do, he approaches the issue from a historical perspective. Baradat analyses not only what positions people take on a variety of issues, but also where these positions come from and what it even means to take a position, or in his words, formulate an ideology. Baradat is correct in spending an entire chapter of his book putting forth a working definition of ideology, an important concept, often misunderstood, that is the subject of his writing. The distinction that he makes between ideology and philosophy is very interesting. I have found that I use the two words interchangeably, but after reading his thoughts on the subject, I am forced to rethink the differences. There are, in fact, distinctions to be made, on the basis of crowd appeal and complexity. I agree with his analysis that an ideology is inherently driven toward the masses, a simplified version of a vision of the future that can be easily described and comprehended by people from every walk of life.
The analysis of the formation of modern political theory that Baradat offers is also insightful. He looks at the roots of modern democracy from both classical liberals as well as early founders of the modern conservative movement. His contrasting of how the same basic ideas and principles lead to the vastly different ideas of Locke and Burke is very important for us to understand today. He shows one of the great parts of being human, disagreement. Smart, educated people, can look at a situation, be given the same facts, and make vastly different conclusions.
I enjoyed Baradat’s writing style, and the reading helped me understand basic political science better. He defined ideology in the context in which he would be using it for the rest of his book. Before reading this, I had used the words ideology and philosophy synonymously without understanding the differences between them. While Ralph Waldo Emerson’s writings are philosophical, Karl Marx’s are ideological. Emerson’s were not necessarily political, they were intended to provoke introspective thought of the individual. Marx’s purpose was to motivate and mobilize the masses; it was political and not as profound as philosophy. Baradat spent the better part of the first chapter defining these two terms and highlighting their differences, which gave the reader a better understanding of the rest of the reading.
I do think that Baradat’s writing clearly showcases his liberal bias. He describes conservatives as having “less faith than liberals”, “animalistic impulses”, and less desire for human equality; serious accusations. But overall, I thought what he wrote about the political spectrum was interesting and informative.
Baradat clearly defined the political spectrum in chapter two. I thought radical referred to both the far right and the far left of the political spectrum, but reactionary is the correct term for the far right and radical should only be used to refer to the far left. He gave different examples for each place on the political spectrum, which gave readers a reference point so they could understand the concept better.
Baradat made an interesting point on page 16 about progressive change. Often we think of the term “progressive” to be so positive and promising positive change. But he says that progress has no intrinsic value, it simply means a change from the status quo.
This reading helped me gain a deeper understanding of the nuances of the political spectrum and the differences between philosophy and ideology.
Honestly, I enjoyed Baradat's work and found it interesting on how he views ideology. There are many definitions of ideology and many other interpretations, but I highly agreed with Baradat's view on ideology. I also agree with Baradat's opinion that ideology must be voiced to the mass of people rather than a certain group. Especially in politics, it would be wise and more convenient if one chose to appeal to the greater mass of people rather than just a small group of followers.
Baradat's style of writing was something else that grabbed my attention. Although I have to admit I wasn't ecstatic when Mr. Kirby passed out those thick, back-to-back paged packet, when I started to read the first few chapters. He presents the text with a paragraph explaining what he intends to talk about, and with that it was a lot easier to understand what his opinions. I personally feel that the first few chapters reminded me of a classic school textbook. There were clear, concise answers to certain questions that were raised and the main ideas of this whole reading was easy to spot with the way he organized it.
Although I agree with some of his sayings and ideas, and the way he wrote this book, I do not agree with some aspects of his ideas. Take the political spectrum for an example. I am not fully conservative or fully liberal, so I didn't really agree with his diagram of the political spectrum. It seemed to me as if his political spectrum presented two opposite teams, liberal and conservative, and then two extremists at the end. It seemed to general. I think that each category somehow fits in with each other in numerous ways rather than being a concrete label.
All in all I enjoyed Baradat's work. It was enjoyable to compare and contrast some of his ideas with my own or others. And I also appreciate the fact that he knows what he is talking about and uses a wide range of examples to support himself. Baradat actually makes political science seem interesting.
I enjoyed reading the Baradat readings on political ideology much more than I expected to. I didn’t really think I would enjoy reading this and though that it would be boring and uninteresting but in fact I found it to be just the opposite of what I expected. Leon Baradat’s writings proved him to be a very intelligent, thoughtful and interesting man. I thoroughly enjoyed his discussions of Ideology by talking about the different views of what Ideology is by different people. These discussions included views from people such as Karl Marx, David Ingersoll, Terrence Ball, and Louis Claude Destutt de Tracey. He made it clear that a view of the political spectrum of two very different and extreme ends was the opinion he held. I for one agree with this one particular spectrum of a line spectrum consisting of one highly conservative side and one side very liberal and even radical. However I do believe that when discussing this particular spectrum the point should be made that in more ways than one the extreme ends of the spectrum are more alike than different. I feel that some who consider themselves to be radical are even more similar to the highly conservative, reactionary members of society than other liberal democrats. I did enjoy how he slightly connected the classic Ideologies to modern day American and other Political Ideologies. The way he presented the information made it easy for me, someone not particularly interested in political ideologies of the world, made it easy for me to understand and make connections to modern politics. Especially the discussions of the most recent elections it became easy to make these connections. Overall I did enjoy these reading and found Baradat to be a very interesting and thought provoking political writer.
Post a Comment