Cosmopolitanism and liberalism compatibility in global politics

Cosmopolitanism and Liberalism in Power and Politics

To under the topic, one must first understand what is involved when talking about Cosmopolitanism and Liberalism. Cosmopolitan is a derivative of the Greek word "kosmopolites" which means citizen of the world. Cosmopolitan views reflect the idea that all humans are from one community that needs cultivating, regardless of political affiliations. The view of Cosmopolitanism varies from one true meaning and depends on the party promoting them but all deal with being one community with the world. Liberalism constitutes a philosophy that believes in the goodness of all humans and that government represents the only option to making better the social inequalities. The two terms are interrelated in some way but diverse in others. This purpose of this essay is to hopefully shed light on the topic of Cosmopolitanism and Liberalism in Power and Politics and if they are compatible.

Literature

Cosmopolitanism

Cosmopolitanism shows trance of concept as far back as the Cold War and got lost basically right after the Cold War ended. Now the biggest obstacle seems to be the need for integration within the party itself. Viewpoints differ so much that a true definition and agenda cannot be discovered.

Should a person's loyalty be to his country or to the world as a whole? Some scholars argue the need for a comparative constitution more suited to a world community is needed to promote prosperity between all the different world cultures. In the book, "For Love of Country: Debating the Limits of Patriotism," Martha Nussbaum explains, "My articulation of these issues is motivated, in part, by my experience working on international quality-of-life issues in an institute for development economics connected with the United Nations" (Nussbaum, pg 4). The insight on current United States political views is we are based on a culture of difference where political lines are divided due to race, religion, sex, creed, and the like. Cosmopolitanism believes in a commitment to simple human rights need inclusion in the education system of the nation and will be the basis to hold multi-nations together (Nussbaum). They world would concentrate on human rights, justice, and respect for each other. Some people have stated that Cosmopolitanism is based on 'Love of Humanity' but Nussbaum agrees that it may be incapable of generating what it take in sacrifice and restraint to be accomplished (Paden, Abstract).

Support for the Bill of Rights and Constitution belief that all men are created equal as long as they are Americans is a contradiction of terms (Stoddard, Conclusion). American students need to be taught that they are citizens of the world more than citizens of the United States due to we all have to share the world (Nussbaum, pg 6). To be a cosmopolitan, one must know their actions and the actions of their government in regards to how it affects power, quality of life, and wealth in the balance of the world. Nussbaum contends that the values a country holds are more relative to habits than reasonable actions. The way we hold our political values might be relative to another countries' but are interpreted though the ideals of that particular area of the world. Nussbaum, in regards to the community of our birth, and the community of human argument and aspiration, states "is truly great and truly common, in which we look neither to this corner nor to that, but measure the boundaries of our nation by the sun (Nussbaum, pg 7)." The main objective is to recognize all humans as neighbor and break down the barriers that exist with moral obligation.

In regards to globalization and the necessity for informed decision making regarding world affairs, Stoddard reports the differences between Pearl Harbor and September 11 as being clearly visible. Pearl Harbor was an attack by a nation and the United States involvement in World War 2 was due to Japan's alliance with Germany. We were fighting nations and places on a map. September 11 was an attack on a principle more than the United States as a country and was committed by a group of people spread out around the world and not a nation (Stoddard, pg 2). Viewpoints differ on a wide range of topics and are at the interpretation of the person describing them. Nussbaum, in another article, wrote that the lawyers of major corporations doing business in other parts of the world have to be trained in the law of that country and all law students should have to learn more about foreign laws.

Another section of capitalism needing more study according to scholars in general is; how the Constitution relates to all citizens as a whole in regards to traditions, values and such. Cosmopolitans seek to bridge this gap and then promote it on a larger world scale.

Pluralism

Liberalism and cosmopolitanism are often linked together to describe some sectors of the parties but as a whole they are very different in some views and alike in others. This has created more of a pluralism view in which the social organization tolerates all diversity in groups with the truth being that reality is based on various substances and elements. Pluralists seek peace coexistence based on good faith principles between cultures and the acceptance of diversity. The pluralist actually is more suited to the cosmopolitan than the liberal. Pluralists view power as a way for people who have to control people who are lacking. Pluralists feel everyone has power in one form or another and no one should have more power than anyone else.

Cosmopolitanism and Liberalism

Both Cosmopolitanism and Liberalism seek to protect rights of humans but on different scales. Social liberalism reflects the chosen path over cosmopolitan liberalism in regards to international wealth distribution and justice. Social liberals concerned with the fairness to states and societies and cosmopolitan liberals are concerned with individual fairness. Differences in principles regarding domestic and international civil society are decisive motives for political and social philosophers to champion social liberalism.

Conclusion

Cosmopolitanism and Liberalism in power and politics promote the human rights on two different scales but definitely share similar viewpoints on the topic. Liberalism has a definite foothold in the world as being viable whereas cosmopolitanism remains more of a concept than a true political platform. Nussbaum agrees that it may be incapable of generating what it takes in sacrifice and restraint to be accomplished (Paden, Abstract). The two different philosophies though different may have a more plausible chance if the philosophies can be merged to meet the desires of both parties. Liberalism outweighs cosmopolitanism in the way most humans want the world to be governed by social reforms more than human right reforms on a world scale. Nussbaum has been an avid speaker on the concept of cosmopolitanism and call for the need for more education in the United State to the plight of humans in other parts of the world and the need for all countries to unite for the good of the world as a whole. More work must be done if, Cosmopolitanism and Liberalism in power and politics, are going to succeed not only from the United States standpoint but from that of other top nations as well.