1
Dandan Wang
Pol S 101
Mr. Esch Thomas
2017-10-15
Annotated Bibliography
Margalit, A. (2013). Liberal or Social Democrat?. Dissent (00123846), 60(2), 21-25. Academic
Search Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed October 13, 2017).
There has always been a heated debate on whether there is a substantial difference
between liberalists and social democrats, and Margalit furthers the discussion in this
paper. Her arguments are founded on some positions taken by those who had previously
tried to examine the distinction. Morgenbesser once attempted to differentiate the two
concepts, albeit with a comical touch, by arguing that while both believe that the surplus
monies of the rich should be granted to the poor, the social democrat places himself on
the giving end but the liberalist places himself in between the two. For the social
democrat, it is more than merely robbing the rich to pay the poor. Equality must be
embraced throughout the slope of the income curve (21). Liberals are more of anarchists
than socialists, and perhaps that is the reason why they are in constant ideological wars
with the disciples of modern democracy. The most admirable feature about these two
ideologies is that they staunchly commit themselves to democracy, save for the few
compromises that have to be made along the way.
Another interesting perspective introduced by Margalit is that of the relationship between
the social environment and one’s character. The conservative believes that people should
be strictly held responsible for anything they do in the social environment while the
2
social democrats think that it is an unfortunate undoing to blame people for things that
are beyond their control. Intriguingly, the liberal find these two standpoints to be faulty
and inconsistent. Margalit’s paper is an essential resource that creates a reliable
foundation for the understanding of the disparity between these ideologies.
3
McTernan, E., O'Neill, M., Schemmel, C., & Schuppert, F. (2016). If you care about social
equality, you want a big state: Home, work, care and social egalitarianism. Juncture,
23(2), 138-144. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed October 13, 2017).
doi:10.1111/newe.12008
The authors' primary argument is that a substantial level of state intervention is necessary
for social equality to be achieved. The article contends that though there has been some
bad blood between Labor and the state, the ensuing futility of the fallout has proven that
they both need one another. However, care should be taken when restoring this
relationship to ensure that the power of the state is utilized efficiently in the furtherance
of a just and egalitarian society. The authors believe that the only way to move past the
impediments to social equality is by having the leftists embracing the idea of a big state
(139).
Care is taken to have an explicit disambiguation between classical egalitarianism and
social egalitarianism. Under the classical egalitarianism, the idea of people having
equality in the amounts of goods available to the people is emphasized. On the other side,
social egalitarians put their focus on the freedom and equality of all citizens. It is the
second viewpoint that attracts the attention of the authors as they believe that it is the
most reliable approach to the achievement of social equality. The input of social
democracy in modern political, economic, and social landscapes should thus be examined
in a similar vein.
Scholz-Wäckerle, M. (2016). Democracy Evolving: A Diversity of Institutional Contradictions
Transforming Political Economy. Journal of Economic Issues (Taylor & Francis Ltd),
4
50(4), 1003-1026. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed October 13, 2017).
doi:10.1080/00213624.2016.1249747
Democracy is a complex ideology that Scholz-Wäckerle believes should be examined in
a comparative approach to establish its underlying institutional contradictions. By keenly
observing the history and evolving nature of democracy, he finds out that there are many
systemic contradictions in the way democracy is perceived from different points of view.
The examination of the fundamental modern variants, capitalist and social democracy, is
the eye-opening section where the interesting contradictions of the ideology become
clearer. The emerging questions are complex and confusing. For example, the
coexistence of capitalism and democracy has been severally questioned. Pas scholars,
like Schumpeter, believe that a capitalist society will in time come up with its unique
version of democracy, but what remains mysterious is whether that version fits perfectly
within the confines of the conventional democracy. By observing the socialist ideologies,
one realizes that socialism and democracy can work seamlessly as their elements are
closely related. The author, therefore, challenges researchers to think about the
convergences and divergences of capitalist and socialist democracies.
5
Summary of the Findings
One important point that emerges from the three articles is that social democracy is not
an isolated ideology. It interacts with many other philosophies, like libertarianism, conservatism,
and capitalism among others. The relationship between social democracy and libertarianism is a
thought-provoking one, as both are deeply rooted in the ideals of peace and harmony, unlike
other war ideologies like fascism, neoconservatism, and war communism (Margalit, 2013). I thus
believe that the fact that social democracy is my political philosophy is not by chance as I'm a
staunch opponent of ideologies of war. I never liked the ideals of Franco and Mussolini as the
characters of their doctrines were founded on violence and conflict. I also believe in the power of
politics to intervene in situations where the deleterious elements of capitalism emerge. I found
out that equality is an essential bridge to freedom.
Another finding regards the justifiability of state intervention in the pursuit of social
equality. The social democrat, like me, would be happier with a society that embraces the big
state model, where the government intervenes in things like the protection of the vulnerable
individuals, industrial policy, and the provision of goods and services (McTernan, O'Neill,
Schemmel, & Schuppert, 2016). If social equality is to be fostered, the fundamental concern
should be on the quality of relationships rather than the equal distribution of goods in the society
(McTernan, O'Neill, Schemmel, & Schuppert, 2016). I never find it easy to imagine how a
society-centric world that believes in freedom from any government intervention would be.
There are many aspects of society that cannot control themselves within the social constructs of
either liberalism or conservatism. It thus should be known that these government controls present
a win-win situation for all parties involved. While some would argue that the ideal model is the
6
‘big society’ approach since the big state theory is quite expensive, it is worth noting that there
are existing government subsidies which are far too costly and inefficient to be justified.
On the different concepts of capitalist and social democracies, the ability of either
capitalism or socialism to coexist with democracy is the primary emerging concern. Arguably,
extreme capitalism is too harsh to have a smooth relationship with the ideals of political freedom
and equality (Scholz-Wäckerle, 2016). Consequently, capitalism finds itself trying to create its
unique version of democracy that fits perfectly with its fundamental tenets. On the other hand,
social democracy perfectly fits into any democratic political system. My political philosophy
emphasizes the values of equality and freedom and holds that capitalism can be ruinous to social
order.
7
References
Margalit, A. (2013). Liberal or Social Democrat?. Dissent (00123846), 60(2), 21-25. Academic
Search Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed October 13, 2017).
McTernan, E., O'Neill, M., Schemmel, C., & Schuppert, F. (2016). If you care about social
equality, you want a big state: Home, work, care and social egalitarianism. Juncture,
23(2), 138-144. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed October 13, 2017).
doi:10.1111/newe.12008
Scholz-Wäckerle, M. (2016). Democracy Evolving: A Diversity of Institutional Contradictions
Transforming Political Economy. Journal of Economic Issues (Taylor & Francis Ltd),
50(4), 1003-1026. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed October 13, 2017).
doi:10.1080/00213624.2016.1249747
Criteria
Pts
your
Ratings
You have You have You have Currently, You are
at least at least 2 one fully
just
three fully fully annotated annotations getting
annotated annotated article.
started!
articles. articles. 48.0 pts incomplete, 19.0 pts
75.0 pts 57.0 pts
but
promising
38.0 pts
You
have
nothing.
0.0 pts
Annotations
(three
minimum)
are
38/ 75.0
You have correct
"hanging" indent
Formatting formatting for your
and Editing annotations.
Proofreading is evident
10.0 pts
Something is something is Formatting
off with off with and Proofing
formatting formatting is
OR proofing. AND unacceptable.
8.0 pts proofing. 0.0 pts
5.0 pts
10 / 10.0
No
Marks
At a minimum, you have 5
Personal paragraphs. An introduction,
Philosophy examination of each annotation,
Essay
and a concluding paragraph.
15.0 pts
Your essay is
underdeveloped and
leaves us wanting more--
please revise (if time).
8.0 pts
0.0 pts
8/ 15.0 p
Purchase answer to see full
attachment