Clare McCullough

There has always been a divide between the skilled workers and unskilled workers. Race is an important intersection to examine, for example, unlike the many examples of discrimination against African Americans, for unskilled white America, as it has been pointed out by Gest in his book The New Minority, there hasn’t been many obstacles put in their path other than the ones they lay themselves. The subtle changes to our rhetoric and economy have been mounting over the post-industrial period, creating a stark political division.

A division and cognitive dissidence that has been illustrated in the book, Strangers in Their Own Land, where preventable environmentally-caused fatal diseases and general community degradation is a moot moral point in voting compared to abortion. In dialogues, an “us” versus “them” rhetoric becomes apparent, as put by Kevin Williamson in his article, “Chaos in the Family, Chaos in the State: The White Working Class’s Dysfunction”,  in fact there is a “rhetorical need to invent moral debasement”. Lending itself to this growing resentment is the new hyper-mobile world in which fake and biased news has been a constant comfort and an accessible aid to those who only consume things that suit their current worldview, creating a self-reinforcing propaganda bubble. This mindset is exacerbated by a rapidly changing demographic and social ills such as the doubling divorce rate. According to Williamson, this mindset sees the concept of a traditional family as having been destroyed and “traditional avenues for achieving respect, status, and permanence” are no longer available.  This perception of the challenges of globalization has been filled in with promises of protectionism, anti-immigration, and national security with nationalistic flair. As the blue-collar jobs move overseas, those who would be qualified for no other work than unskilled labor are no longer able to contribute to the family the same way that their grandfathers did.

Lastly and most importantly are the economic changes in our post-industrial society. The single-industry towns in which there was plenty of jobs and opportunity from one business, but like many farms that rely on a mono-culture, when the industry left the town there was nothing there but empty warehouses and pollution. Resentment builds up against those who take what little they have left, the “those” meaning the government’s taxation and, everyone else seems to be cutting in line in front of the white blue-collar worker. These post-traumatic towns, as referred to in The New Minority, are the ruins of a society thriving before globalization. According to Williamson, we now make the capital goods, while more and cheaper consumer goods are created by poorer countries than the US. The white working class has not been victimized by outside forces, they have failed to adjust to a changing society that demands change.

We see this in the fiction book, The Age of Miracles. We see those who adjust their clocks to the earth’s slowing turn and try to get on with their lives and then the people grasping onto the past era; Clock timers vs real timers. These changes were subtle just like they are in real life, the minutes pooling into hours and slowing changing the composition of the day. The main character’s neighbor Sylvia was a real-timer. She stayed the longest out of all the real timers on the block, when the others all left and created their own new communities, and those left behind were subject to prejudice and aggression from neighbors. This resentment between the groups comes from a nostalgia much like what the white working class feel today.

Clare McCullough

Art has long been used to make a statement, or simply be an expression of the artist. Surrealist scenes have often permeated more modern works of art. But sometimes these modern artists incorporate old techniques with the new in order to express their ideas of the world. Such as Ablardo Morell’s photograph, “Empire State Building in Bedroom”, in which Morell uses light and framing to express the impact of his culture shock when he first arrived to the United States.
When you first walk into a city, you see the skyscrapers tower over you at impossible heights. Light filters through the giants that are made of steel and glass and cut shadows into the sky, defying the natural order of things. Intimidating, frightening, foreign, at least that’s how Ablardo Morell must’ve seen it when he immigrated to America at a young age with his parents from Havana, Cuba in 1948. He received his undergraduate degree from Bowdoin college in 1977 and his love for art extended from there. In 1977, he obtained an MFA from the Yale University of Art (Morell). After the birth of his son, he started experimenting with the Camera Obscura in 1986, which is Latin for “dark room”.(SFMOMA)
A Camera Obscura is an ancient light trick and is considered one of the first proto-cameras . A Camera Obscura is something that, according to National Geographic, “receives images just like the human eye—through a small opening and upside down. Light from outside enters the hole at an angle, the rays reflected from tops of objects, like trees, coursing downward, and those from the lower plane, say flowers, traveling upward, the rays crossing inside the dark space and forming an inverted image.” When Morell was teaching a course on photography at an art college he turned his whole classroom into a Camera Obscura, he knew he had something. And so he started creating his works, turning darkened rooms into fantastic landscapes one of which was “Empire State Building in Bedroom” As a result.
The Empire State Building is draped over a bed missing from the city skyline, which is inverted in the background over the bed and nightstand, looking limp and tired looking, ”as if it had just come home from the hard work of skyscraping all day” (National Geographic). The building is shiny and casts a dark shadow over the white sheets. Above the inverted skyline, the sky is filled with clouds, making the skyline itself a little dim. The framing of the image is a bit disjointed, things that aren’t supposed to be in the photograph, are there. The skyline on the top and the shadow of the bed on the bottom leaves a large hole in the left-side of the painting. Although the physical wall of the room in which the camera obscura was created changes direction, it seems as if the skyline is almost unaffected by this, continuing on making a seemingly flat picture.
In this photograph, Morell was trying to convey the emotions of disorientation, and disbelief that he felt during the culture shock when first arriving to America. When Morell was 14, and he moved to the comparatively developed USA from Cuba, where he saw the towering buildings of New York. This changed his world forever. And so, he uses the Camera Obscura’s inversion to portray his absolute disorientation when first seeing the Empire State Building. By omitting the empire state building from the city’s horizon and portraying the sharp figure of the empire state through the use of shadow and light as limp, and silvery platinum he placates the imposing building and makes it seem even more strange. The use of a cloudy sky instead of a stark bright one emphasizes the ethereal feel of the photograph that he tried to convey.
Through light, he blurs the imagined lines between landscape and dreamscape, waking us up and almost jolting us back to more of an innocent time. His use of light makes the empire state building look almost liquid, the light seemingly coming in from the cloudy sky, his use of light is disorienting and adds to the simplistic irrational element of the photograph. The deep shadows of the piece put emphasis the bed in the middle, grounding the photograph. The only truly real thing in the room was the bed since it is the only thing that has clear lines caused by the lighting. The angled position of the familiar object is where the main emphasis is, leading your eye back to where the pillows are and ultimately, where the skyscraper is. Positioning is very important in this work as Morell uses framing to create more space in the sky by omitting the empire state building, and essentially taming it. Through that, he conveys what he would have dreamed of doing at that young age into an unlimited version of reality. By blending the famous building into a domestic scene, he gives himself more control over it making the skyscraper more unusual, conveying what he might have felt when undergoing this huge culture shock.
Camera Obscuras have been used throughout human history. Ablardo Morell brought this ancient technology back and so turned out our perception. He turns our dreams into landscapes through his use of framing and light in “Empire State Building in Bedroom”, Morrell expresses his reaction to the then foreign to him, USA.
 

Works Cited

“Abelardo Morell, Camera Obscura Image of the Empire State Building in Bedroom, 1994.” SFMOMA. San Francisco Museum of Modern Art, n.d. Web. 07 Dec. 2015.
“About Abelardo Morell.” Abelardo Morell. If Magazine, 9 Dec. 2013. Web. 07 Dec. 2015.
O’Neill, Tom. “Bravura Camera Obscura.” Camera Obscura. National Geographic, May 2011. Web. 07 Dec. 2015.

Clare McCullough
A public policy issue that is extremely important is environmental regulation. This issue has what might be the largest impacts out of any other facing us today, and it will start truly affecting us around as soon as 2050; within my lifetime. A recent policy that has tried to tackle the issue of pollution and the warming climate is the Clean Power Plan, which aims to combat climate change by putting caps on CO2 emissions. Another big environmental step forward under Obama’s administration was The Paris Climate Agreements which occurred Winter of 2015. In the past policies, have tried to reduce carbon emissions and maintain environmental health through incentive and disincentive programs.
Conservation policies are important because its shown that if we continue living and consuming the way that we have; it will lead to extreme weather patterns. There will be long droughts in some places and flooding in others. Often, I believe, we forget how dependent we are on our natural resources. The necessity for a sustainable future is paramount, if we are going to raise quality of life as a planet. The point of progress is to grow and be happy, and if we cannot achieve at least the basic rights of clean air and water then what was the point? In the end, all we have is our health and our environment in which we live in.
Tackling climate change will require international action. The time for action was yesterday and we can’t afford to ignore the impacts of the fact of global warming. The unsustainable use of dirty energy will create a dramatic transformation that we are already seeing the beginning of the impacts. 2014 was the hottest year until 2015 was the hottest year. As the oceans rise, small island countries will start to disappear as well as low lying cities such as Dakka and Shanghai and will create thousands of millions of refugees, pushing the rapidly growing populations elsewhere and compounding food crises which are already fragile in a lot of countries. Crops will not grow the same in different climates, so there will be less food to put on the table, over the long-term food production will decrease and the poorest among us will be the most vulnerable to that, increasing the need for aid. Not to mention the loss of biodiversity caused by unsustainable development and use of energy. The coral reefs are already bleaching and bees are going extinct. Biodiversity is crucial for any ecological system to function properly.
But, I believe in a different future. We can move together to solve for the inherent problems that are facing us with climate change. First, we need to stabilize greenhouse gas emissions, as well as decrease the use of dirty energy and increase investment in clean energy possibilities. For the energy challenge to be overcome, we need to have an inexpensive and reliable energy source, an energy that emits optimally no greenhouse gasses, and an energy source that doesn’t create local environmental and health problems. With the booming world population, it will be difficult to achieve all those goals, especially since coal and dirty energies are admittedly very cheap. However, fossil fuels create pollution that shortens lives and are causing climate change and the consequences that follow as I explained above are very complicated and severe. The Paris agreements are expected to help a little in this realm. The three key solutions to solve the energy problem, beside international cooperation, is that we need to start evaluating energy sources at their full social costs and not just looking at energy as an issue that stands apart. We need to invest in research and development in innovation to make sustainable energy cheaper and cleaner. By identifying effective policy tools to combat specific problems we can solve a lot of the issues, we can put the real price on energy emssions to foster innovation and research into alternative energy sources as well as putting caps on CO2 emissions.
According to The National Geographic, if we cut our emissions by two thirds by 2050, only then we can limit the rise of climate change to 2 percent. By switching where we get our energy from and investing in energies such as solar, nuclear, and wind among others we can achieve this goal. But to do that we need to educate people on the issue of climate change especially since there are so many climate change deniers out there and that’s the largest issue facing sustainable policy makers today. Because with this specific issue, it is up to the governments to move us into the right direction. By investing in cleaner transportation, agriculture, maintaining building codes, and better management of forests we can help combat the magnitude that is the problem of climate change
We must act together and we must act now. We need to survive with our planet and I want any future children of mine to know that I was looking out for them from the very beginning and that I did everything in my power to ensure that they will get to enjoy the same beautiful and natural world that I grew up knowing.

Clare McCullough

I believe that Roediger’s argument that the Irish “became white” is minimizing the advantages that they held in the mid-1800s. The Irish were always more accepted than free Black people because they were still white and got the benefit of the doubt. They got to choose how they acted and most importantly, they could vote and participate in society on a level that was absolutely inaccessible to African Americans. The Irish-Americans were hated because the influx of their immigration drove down the values of wages during this time, they were seen as violent, sexually promiscuous, and heavy drinkers; all qualities that were frowned upon in America at this time.
They viewed African Americans as competitors for jobs even though they were “a small part of the urban labor force.” (147) the fact is that African Americans were easy targets to exercise their frustration of being considered second class citizens. The Irish were discriminated against and often compared to the African American slaves, hence their being called “white niggers” quite frequently and were “used as substitutes for slaves within the South” (146) they cost less than slaves because if a “Paddy” was hurt on the job they wouldn’t have to pay for their bills. They had their own obstacles especially since they were poor and so did not have the opportunities afforded to other whites and in that regard they were like the African Americans. They came off the boat from farmland and were introduced to a completely different world filled with foreign machines and drudgery.
While, Irish folks were heavily discriminated against, denied jobs, respect, and opportunities that were afforded to their white peers, they were still seen as people. Irish people owned themselves. They would not be taken from their homes and sold as slaves or dragged from their houses and lynched. The Irish were on the same position socially and economically however, politically they had as much as a voice as any other white person in this time. They in fact were strong supporters of the Democratic Party in antebellum America. They embraced their whiteness and did everything they could to align themselves with the Anglo-Saxon “race” and to some extent, they were accepted. If you compare the Black experience to the White Irish, you’ll see that you’d delegitimize the real struggles that the African American population suffered through.

Roediger, David R. “The Wages of Whiteness: Race and the Making of the American Working Class.” The Haymarket Series, 1991, caringlabor.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/roediger-the-wages-of-whiteness-race-and-the-making-of-the-american-working-class.pdf.

Clare McCullough

In “The Case for Offshore Balancing: A Superior US Grand Strategy” by John J Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt. Their main focus of the article is to convince their audience that Offshore balancing would be more effective than liberal hegemony to achieve the long-term goals of the United States. The Status Quo as it exists, is a liberal hegemony in which the United States deals with domestic problems and leads the world in trade, humanitarian rights, and is the major player in international institutions all the while promoting and sometimes enforcing democratic ideals with military force (71)

In the international political world, the number one power at the moment is indisputably the United States, but with the changing economy, there has been growth in formerly poor countries throwing off the political balance. However, maintaining our current liberal hegemony strategy, according to Mearsheimer and Walt, might not be the most sustainable course of action if the United States wants to keep its dominance. Instead, offshore balancing is preferred to preserve US dominance; our current policy of liberally using interventionist military policies should be abandoned. The United States should aid local governments and encourage self-governance in all different regions, intervening only when absolutely necessary for US security and prosperity(71)

China is an example of exceptional growth of a formerly underdeveloped country beginning to rise after the modern economic reforms to the Maoist totalitarian government. The liberalized economy has utilized the large Chinese population and has turned the country into a contender for the seat of the “Grand Hegemon”. Russia is also a major player in the region. Having strong players in close geopolitical proximity should make it easy to attain what should be the primary goal of the United States. The United States’ goal in the East should be to set the power players against each other, Moscow will check Beijing and thus the US maintains dominance. The larger countries in the middle east, such as Iran, are in position to play a part in the changing political landscape since China will most likely want a foothold in the Middle East, disturbing US oil security.

Walt and Mearshimer both maintain that international institutions don’t play a large role, both in the world of the liberal hegemony and a US dominated Offshore balancing strategy. If they do at all, the international institutions reflect only the interests of the most powerful player, ie the US. Institutions such as NATO also play a large role in stability in the region. Alliances are better for everyone and interactions that are facilitated through Institutions. Institutions are effective because they lend a hand to facilitate Iteration, which is a repeated interaction with the same partner usually leading to more peaceful interactions. By setting up a linkage throughout the talks we can ensure that people won’t try to cheat through collective bargaining problems. Collective bargaining problems are obstacles to cooperation that happen when actors have incentives to collaborate, but each acts like everyone will bear the burden equally.

The theoretical perspectives that both Walt and Mearsheimer embrace is realism. Offshore balancing, at its core, is Realist. It advocates intervention only when the US knows it can win and only when it benefits the United States in a significant way. “The Case for Offshore Balancing” proposes that the United States’ “principal aim should be to maintain the regional balance so that the power players of the East, Russia and China, do not extend their reach into the western hemisphere” (73) Maintaining power in these regions is very important, although as a realist strategy, the aim isn’t to produce peace, it’s to fight wars that we know without a doubt we can win and profit from. Realism maintains that states seek security and power above all else. Bargaining is the primary interactions since States usually don’t have shared interests, but coercion is always a possibility.

Offshore balancing would require the United States to stay out of other countries for as long as possible. The United States could respond accordingly to rising hegemon and possibly not have to intervene at all since the regional countries nearby would be able to check the rising power in a more sustainable and effective way than the United States would ever be able to achieve. It would reduce the risk of terrorism since intervention is inherently disruptive of the region in question, resulting in nationalistic resentment of the peoples living there and weakening the local governments since their sovereignty is being undermined.(75) Staying out of other countries and utilizing offshore balancing would enable the United States to increase the resources it could use for domestic needs.

The arguments against offshore balancing are many and varied. The first of which is that only strong US leadership would be able to keep order around the globe, however the article points out that this only benefits the United States and that the local government should be able to deal with these issues without US intervention (77). The second argument is that US leadership is necessary in order to overcome the collective-action problem of local actors failing to balance a rising hegemon. However, the article points out that offshoring solves this problem because it permits interference. Another argument to reject offshore balancing is because it is the US’s moral and strategic imperative to promote freedom and human rights whenever it can, however spreading democratic ideals “by the point of a gun” isn’t a sustainable way to ensure that that democracy is lasting, by an outsider changing the regimes of a country there will be powerful oppositions toward the intervening military.

The arguments for offshore balancing are many according to Mearsheimer and Walt. Intervention is not as cheap as advocates say and the United States can ensure the longevity of our international dominance by refocusing our interests on domestic issues such as infrastructure, education, and research and development (78) Promoters of liberal hegemony of the United States believe that the US military must garrison to keep the peace and ensure an open economy but they fail to realize that regional conflicts are going to happen even if the US is involved (78) Unfortunately, no strategy is going to be successful in preventing proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, but military intervention would only delay the inevitable. The United States’ constant presence abroad might also embolden our allies to seek conflict more, readily knowing that they had the US-backing them in their backyard.(80)

There are many strengths to viewing International Politics in a Classical realist perspective. Offshore balancing and liberal hegemony both embrace many of the assumptions that the realists assert. “Might makes Right” or at least “Might creates Legitimacy” seems to be a common Hobbesian assumption that Realists maintain, and to a certain extent, they would be right. In order to positively ensure survival you must be the most powerful child in the sandbox, but, they seem to look over the fact that there is more than just the sandbox and the other players, since there will always be other institutions and actors looking to exert their power. Viewing the world through an anarchical lens will take you far enough to survive and expand from the state of nature.

However, the different interactions that are available don’t have to be constrained to a “Self-help” conduit. Realism is often a self-fulfilling prophesy. There are many opportunities for cooperation in order to attain one’s interest in an easier way. We can achieve power through wealth and thus ensure our security. Approaching offshore balancing through a liberal lens would ensure that no single interest dominates. If the long-term goal is prosperity and stability for the United States, we must operate not on our conflicting interests but on our shared interests.

Embracing International Institutions and pursuing what Kant calls a “Perpetual Peace” should be the United State’s goal so we can reap the benefits of our current “agenda setting power” and use the benefits of our liberal hegemony in a way that the Offshore balancing strategy is not mutually exclusive. All in all, besides certain weaknesses that realist philosophies often fall prey to; offshore balancing strategies seem to have the potential to be more sustainable in regards to maintaining the United State’s dominance than our current Status Quo.

Sweden’s social democracy and Germany’s social market economy have many similarities in policymaking and differences in their value structures. Whereas Sweden allows for direct influence from the worker on its bureaucratic structure, Germany has more of an emphasis on self-regulation and decentralization of power. Their different histories are indispensable in understanding the core values of these democracies.
Sweden’s basic principles of social democracy can be encapsulated in a quote from Sweden’s former Prime Minister, Tage Erlander, “it is a mistake to believe that people’s freedom is diminished because they decide to carry out collectively what they are incapable of doing individually.” (Tilton, 1990) Sweden has long been a pioneer in the promoter of social justice through the use of a strong corporate market and socialized distributive policies. In fact, their emphasis on collective bargaining as a means to reinforce the general welfare of its workers is illustrated by the fact that around 70% of people in Sweden are in a union (Lecture notes 9/18). According to Tilton, The Swedish commitment to the working class’s full participation in society is indicative of their framework of viewing everything through its social utility. Maximum social utility, in the eyes of the Swede, is best created with an equalized background conditions; they see the public sector as expanding their freedom of choice instead of a limiting factor. (Tilton, 1990)
Germany is made up of different, more conservative values; it is classified as a social market economy. A core principle of its federal system is that decision-making processes should be made through the most local level possible. This concept called subsidiarity, is prevalent in many Christian democracies. Rather than direct social justice, Germany’s ethical society traditionally bases a lot of emphasis on their welfare state, social partnership with interest groups, and fair competition. (The German Polity) Germany relies on the private market a lot more than top-down public distribution system than Sweden. This is indicative of their goal to avoid any major concentration of power. They value compassionate conservatism; its welfare state is very strong and is seen as a 3rd way between socialism and laissez-faire economic liberalism. (Lecture notes 9/27)
The way both countries see equality and democracy can be shown through the welfare states, economic thought and electoral systems. Sweden defines equality as an equality of consideration. This egalitarian principle makes sure that they do not see economic efficiency as a zero-sum situation in regards to social policies. They have a framing with which they allow for “expenditures on their education and health should be seen not as burdens upon production, but as investments in human capital” (Tilton, 1990). This economic equality is heavily based on Keynesian thought towards equitable distribution of wealth and government distribution through progressive tax policies. They are both a political democracy as well as an industrial one. Democracy is carried out through committees, consultation, and underneath a magnifying glass held by the people themselves. (Heclo & Madsen) According to the Economist, “Sweden gives everyone access to official records” this fact shows the conditions of democracy. Absolute transparency of Sweden’s government makes the people’s home more democratic.
Germany has a different view of equality than Sweden but a similar approach toward democracy. They do not put as much emphasis on government intervention so much as showing a preference for subsidiarity and self-regulation. Welfare is one of the most important issues for the German citizen, they see the welfare state bringing them social peace and prosperity. Their equal prosperity is achieved with a bargaining approach (139 The German Polity) In fact, their multiparty system ensures that there are many views being represented through coalition governments although sometimes there is not a clear winner. There is an emphasis on democracy in the workplace as seen in the works councils. The German Polity describes Interest groups as a “a vital factor in the policy making process” (166) Parties also play a huge role in institutions due to the split ballot and multiparty system. They have a strong committee system, in which Business interests and other interest groups have a large say in decision-making since the government is required to consult them if they are relevant through the Remiss system just like Sweden. But Germany takes a step further in allowing interest groups sometimes implement policy. This is the notion of social partnership coming into play, but negotiation and compromise is no stranger to Germany.
Individualism being a zero-sum game in contest with the collective good does not necessary ring true for these countries. Their view of the proper role of government and the individual is unique to each of them however. Sweden’s famous reference to its government as the people’s home has continued to dominate the role of the government. Sweden has a strongly centralized state where they center on full employment with a comprehensive welfare state. The public sphere controls a lot of property but industry can be a mixture of both public and private, the gradual socialization is indicative of their social democracy. Sweden is a venture capitalist country with a large regulatory structure. Most of the jobs in Sweden are in the public sector. There has been a gradual socialization of property rights. Property rights are seen as a bundle, the gradual socialization of property parallels the idea that the expansion of the public sector extends their freedom of choice. (Tilton, 1990) They see taxes not as a public overreach but an opportunity to pay for public services. The logic of Sweden is seen like this, If private capital resists public welfare and equal democratic organization of economic life, then government intervention maximizes prosperity and democracy.
The German Federal system is specifically geared to prevent centralized power which is why Germany gives a lot of power to the Lander regions allowing them extensive autonomy including a veto power. This distributed sovereignty is in place so that their future would be different from their fascist/communist past. Multiparty coalitions mirror the German value of solidarity. The individual gets two votes to pick their representation, both a party and a person to represent them. The market economy of Germany is also regulated for social ends, but not to the extent of Sweden. Germany’s generous welfare state is supported by social partnership programs instead of the government. Companies are social institution’s stakeholders since that is where the worker spends most of their time. Although its Federal system checks the National government the Chancellor is the center of executive authority (Lecture notes 9/25). Like Sweden, they believe that market mechanisms should not distribute gains, but instead of the government they use social partnership.
There are policies that mirror the core values of each country; the electoral system and how they treat their workers seem to be the most deterministic. Consultation with special interests hold a special weight in both these systems. Sweden’s emphasis on collectivism has created the nickname of the people’s home for its unitary system in which egalitarianism and full employment are their central goals. Equity does not exclude efficiency is their motto. A solidaristic wage policy is available thanks to the strong union presence in the country. Their social policy is universal, meaning that everyone has equal consideration. Economic system is undoubtedly Keynesian with government pressure to drive and organize the economy for more equal distribution. This social democracy’s market is largely subsidized by public welfare, for example, Sweden has an extensive paternity and maternity privileges. Government intervention is meant to maximize prosperity and expand options for its people. In making policy, the Swedish Rigstag has something called the Remiss system, this system is also present in Germany. Their integrative democracies allow for the voices of experts, interest groups, workers, and the employers to all be heard equally. Their unusually concentrated industrial structure emerges as a result of these policies.
In fact, Germany’s interest groups sometimes implement policy (Lecture notes 9/25) But the government lays down the goals of the social partnership. According to the German Polity, “60 percent of bills are modified through the Bundestag’s committees” (222) Consultation with committees hold a lot of weight although that said they only have the ability to propose amendments not modify the documents themselves. The works council is an important policy that enforces equality and democracy in the workplace. Workers are able to sit down with their employers and have a say in how they are treated. Policies are generally pro-business but it is a “Compassionate Conservatism”
All in all, in comparing the two ideologies of social democracy in Sweden and Germany’s social market economy we can see similarities in policy-making procedure but not in execution. They both have extensive welfare states and hold economic equality in the same regard as political equality.
Bibliography
Conradt, D. P., & Langenbacher, E. (2013). The German Polity. Plymouth, UK: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc.
Heclo, H., & Madsen, H. (n.d.). Policy and Politics in Sweden Principled Pragmatism. Chapter 1.
Tilton. (1990). The Political Theory of Swedish Social Democracy. 257-269; 276-280.