Conservatives and Liberals
26 August 2006I am a book worm. I love books and almost never turn loose of them. As a result, I have almost all of my college text books from courses I cared about. If you’ve read my profile you know I was a double major in political science and religion. So I have all my books from both majors.
I’ve been thinking about my definitions page and the need to define liberal and conservative. I’ve done a good bit of reading on the web, particularly at Dean’s World, about what constitutes a liberal. Dean prefers the classical definition of liberal and applies it to himself, though most today would consider him a conservative in the modern sense.
I’ve also gone back to the textbook from my intro to poli-sci class in college and done some re-reading there. What I’ve come up with boils down to two words. One applies to liberals (in the modern usage of that word) and the other applies to conservatives. The two words are rights and responsibilities.
Liberals focus on rights and find new ones all the time. In addition to the rights spelled out in the Bill of Rights, liberals find a right to health care, a right to food, a right to happiness (as opposed to the pursuit of happiness mentioned in the Declaration of Independence), and others. For liberals everything is about rights and the government exists to protect and extend those rights. What ever action the government needs to take in the name of rights is always justified. If that means higher taxes – that’s fine. If that means taking property – that’s okay. Of course it never seems to occur to liberals that this is an incoherent position because everything the government does in this regard tramples of the rights of one in the name of another.
Conservative, on the other hand, focus on responsibility. Conservatives certainly believe in rights, particularly those enumerated in the Bill of Rights, but they believe that rights can only exist in tandem with responsibility. For example, we have a right to our personal property but unless we take responsibility for obtaining property we will have none to protect. For a conservative rights cannot exist unless citizens take responsibility for themselves and act in responsible ways. Thus, a person should take responsibility for making a living for himself. He should put money back for his retirement and he should plan for medical problems by getting medical insurance or a medical savings account. The role of government is to set up the conditions for people to prosper and then get out of the way and let them take care of themselves.
The entire difference is summed up in the almost cliché expression “give a man a fish and feed him a meal, teach a man to fish and feed him for a life time.” Liberals would give out fish every day forever, taking the fish from those who caught them and giving them out to those who did not. Conservatives would make fishermen of everyone so we all have fish to eat. That is the difference at its core. Of course it gets much more complicated than that. For example, what if the man has no arms and so can’t hold a fishing pole? Conservatives would give that man a fish too. But conservatives would look for other ways for that man to ultimately feed himself so he isn’t always dependent on the free fish. Liberals wouldn’t even think about finding ways for that man to feed himself. He deserves free fish for life in their view, and he should get them.
As you can see, there is a vast gulf between these two views of life, the world and government. It is difficult for me to see how these two views can be reconciled. They are polar opposites. As a conservative I believe the liberal view is utopian and dangerous. It encourages people to depend on government instead of themselves and it ensures the continued growth of government to meet the constantly expending needs of the people, needs they should be meeting themselves. And its policies stifle economic growth in the name of fairness, resulting in spreading the misery. It is a vicious cycle that grows more difficult to break as each year passes.
Conservatism encourages people to depend on themselves. It promotes economic conditions that benefit everyone who is willing to take responsibility for themselves. It harms no one, in and of itself, although those who will not take responsibility for themselves end up harming themselves under such a system.
The differences are stark and clear. Where you fall in this spectrum determines who you think is responsible for whom. The lines are clear, even when the candidates are not.
As we approach this election season we’d each do well to keep all this in mind. It will be of primary importance come November.
Print This Post
Tags: PoliticsRelated Posts
- Tunnel Vision
- Frisch Fried
- Another RINO Holds On
- Some Much Needed Perspective
- Rove Influence Leads to N. Korean Bomb Test
You must be logged in to post a comment.
August 31st, 2006 at 9:23 am
Conservatives vs Liberals
I have just seen one of the best explanations of the differences between Conservatives and Liberals of today at Ron’s Musings. I found him through Blonde Sagacity. She is on vacation, so she has guest bloggers on her blog all
September 1st, 2006 at 8:17 am
Hey Ron! I hope you and your family are doing well.
On to your post:
Is it possible that you are offering a false choice? You said that “the liberal view is utopian and dangerous”, and I see your point. However, it seems to me that telling everyone to man up and take responsibility and then basing the system on expecting every person to do so is also dangerous, because of the following:
1) I believe that there are places of our society in which people can’t get out. I believe that there are some people that are subdued race issues, social class issues, environment, and the poverty line.
In addition to this, what will you teach the mentally ill homeless man? You say you will find ways for him to feed himself, to which I can only answer, “Like what?” (I realize that you are being metaphorical, but I feel like arguing this issue completely theoretically doesn’t make much sense, and leads to idealism.)
2) I also believe that there will be some who will take responsibility, and then overstep their bounds. You hypothesize that the only reason someone will not be happy in a conservative system is if they don’t take responsibility for themselves. However, there will be some who will be responsible for themselves and then some (Read: corruption). There will be those who are trodden by the corrupt, even though they are doing all they can to be ‘responsible’.
Granted, both of these points could theoretically be resolved, but in that case you’re arguing an ideal that will never exist. I think that’s dangerous.
There wouldn’t be conservatives if liberals did everything right, and vice versa. (For example, could it not be argued that it would have been “liberal,” or, “not conservative” to allow blacks to vote?) The closest we will ever come to an ideal society can be found in balance. If conservatives and liberals would stop seeing each other as enemies and start seeing each other as people, individual people, with souls and feelings and beliefs, who share a common goal (the greater good) maybe we could get some work done. There can be reconciliation between the two. In fact, there should be.
September 1st, 2006 at 9:07 pm
Sarah,
I’m not talking theoretical at all, though I am speaking generally. Yes, there are people who legitimately need help and I’m not against helping them. I question whether the government is best suited to help people though. Government does not exist for that purpose and our Constitution does not make allowances government to fill that role. That is a role better suited for churches and charities, not government.
I do not say everyone will be happy under any circumstances. I only claim that each person is responsible for finding their own happiness. The Declaration of Independence does not say we have a right to be happy. It says we have a right to pursue happiness. No one is responsible for the happiness of another, nor can they be.
The system we have now and what liberals support is a cradle to grave dependence on government for many in our society. Such a system and such a way of viewing the world leads to less happiness, not more. When someone else is responsible for providing what you need you will never be satisfied with what is provided. We see that all the time.
There will always be exceptions. Even Jesus said, “the poor you have with you always.” But the context of Jesus statement was that the poor could wait. They were not the most important thing at the time. Government should stick to what government exists for and what it is good at. Things like national defense, foreign relations, trade, etc. Let others do the work of taking care of those who truly need help. That is much more efficient both because those providing the help are much closer to those who need it and because that closeness works to prevent the abuses we have now.
As for your theoretical question about liberals, conservatives and the black vote, you are working with the old definitions. Yes, classical liberalism would support the black vote. But modern conservatives is virtually equivalent to classical liberalism.
Ultimately I’m not sure that the extreme left shares any goals with me or conservatives in general. For the most part the left doesn’t bother too much with arguing the merits of various points of view as I’ve done here. Instead they attempt to destroy, if only metaphorically, those whose views are in opposition to their own. While I don’t claim that has never happened on the right, it is not the norm. For the left it has become a way of life. I experience it often when posting on other sites. I love it when I can have a good debate with someone from the left and we actually discuss substantive issues. But it doesn’t happen often. Most of the time the first thing that happens is someone just calls me an idiot or worse and dismisses my arguments out of hand without bothering to deal with the arguments I make.
In the end I stand by my descriptions. I wish it were different but I don’t think it is. I’d love for us to all just get along and work together but I don’t see that happening any time soon. The left isn’t interested.
Thanks for reading Sarah. Even if you’re arguing against me I always enjoy our conversations. Don’t be a stranger.