Conservatism vs. Liberalism

In the last few decades, the rise of extremism as a coup for power has relegated politics to the level of trench warfare. It views everything from a strategic viewpoint, shamefully dehumanizing the opposition with a barrage of propaganda. A democracy only functions properly when truth and civility are maintained. While tension and disagreement is to be expected, the narrow-minded trench warfare we see today is hostile to everything we believe in.
    Liberals have been painted as bleeding hearts whose only purpose is to tax and spend. Conservatives have been charged with bigotry and being in the pocket of big business.
    These tiresome, manipulative mantras have been repeated so many times, and with such venom, that they actually distort the real definitions of conservative and liberal — to the detriment of both, and to the betrayal of the people whose welfare and integrity democracy is supposed to maintain.
    Political corruption, found on both sides, has shattered public confidence. Despite rhetoric to the contrary, neither extreme can claim a moral high-ground. They approach issues as partisan opportunities, disconnected from the whole.
    It is significant to know that the original founders of the United States opposed the formation of a two party system. They feared that once a party exists it would place the good of the party before the good of the nation. The partisanship we see in today's system has more than justified their concern. We call true patriots to reject the aimless mindset of contention for contention's sake.
    One way we start to overcome this bickering is to examine the actual definitions of conservatism and liberalism.

Conservatism

Conservatism is a political ideology that places great value on learning from past solutions, tried and true, for answers we need today. It cherishes tradition and resists change. When change is avoidable, it is accepted slowly and with a fair amount of caution.
    While 43% of Americans identify themselves as conservative, this figure is misleading. Conservatism is divided into many disparate parts, including social, cultural and economic conservatives, neocons, theocons, libertarians, and various subsets pointing to leaders of the past, including Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Barry Goldwater, and Ronald Reagan. Some of these branches are very different from one another, with certain issues that overlap.
    Conservatives are known for wanting to return to traditional religious and ethical absolutes, automatically rejecting the challenges of relativism. Ronald Reagan summed up his philosophy as "limited government, individual liberty, and the prospect of a strong America." No relativism there.
    With the influence of so many competing factions today, issues thought to be conservative have expanded to include anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, support of big business, lowering taxes, small government, protection of gun ownership, and a knee-jerk dislike of anything considered "liberal," considered an all-encompassing pejorative.
    Conservatives defend the status quo. They usually prefer empirical knowledge to rationalism, faith to reason, rugged individualism to victim mentality, and a have a deep distrust of human nature, which needs to be strongly disciplined. For the sake of freedom, they want less laws and regulations, replaced by greater personal responsibility. The idea of equality seems obvious mistaken. People vary according to their talents, skills, perseverance and a host of other variables. They reap what they sow and earn their rewards accordingly. People are expected to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, with neighbor helping neighbor when emergency strikes. Success is considered admirable and hard work encouraged. That God picks his favorites reveals its Calvinist roots.
    Traditionally, conservatives lean toward isolationism and away from nation-building and wars of choice. For many, neocons especially, this has changed
    As you can see, conservatism supports many great ideas that can be found in Seed-for Thought, such as personal responsibility, self-development, a respect for tradition, and looking to the past for answers relevant for today.  

Liberalism

Liberalism is much harder to define because of the narrow definition imposed on it by the other side. Indeed, one might say that far right gains it identity from a rejection of all things considered liberal. Sidney Blumenthal once wrote that "conservatism requires liberalism for its meaning," and "without the enemy [liberalism] to serve as nemesis… conservative politics would lack its organizing principle." Conservatives make no qualms about blaming liberalism for everything, and feel little reason to explain why.
    Modern conservatism was born as a reaction to Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal and presidential power during World War II, and was bolstered by the Great Society that followed. These were monumental, radical changes that shocked traditionalists. Liberals would defend them as a necessary response to the Great Depression and Nazism. In 1940, 60% of Americans lived beneath the poverty level. This was reflected in the fact that 50% of men who enlisted to fight in World War II were rejected due to lack of fitness. Many had never seen a doctor in their lives. Half a century later these facts have been forgotten. Only the radical nature of the programs remains.
    To understand liberalism, one needs to step back from conservative stereotypes.
    Liberalism actually has a long and honored history in the United States, reflecting Western instincts rooted in ancient Greece and Rome. America's War of Independence and Constitution were produced from it, not as products of tradition but as a sudden and radical rejection of royalty and inherited class distinctions. The founders were children of the Enlightenment who placed value on human reason and ideals that they considered "self-evident," including equality and the pursuit of happiness for all. Traditional colonialism was expelled from these shores because of them. Religious freedom, capitalism, human rights, and a republic built on checks and balances, were all radical ideas at the time, lumped together under the title of "liberal democracy."
    America's founders were revolutionary in spirit, had great reverence for reason, and would not allow traditional forms of government to control them. Their insistence on separation of church and state was not only a nod to the deist beliefs of many of the founders, it was a reasonable way to prevent religious wars that had plagued Europe for centuries, and denied ordinary religious freedom.
    At the same time as these revolutionaries were scripting guarantees of human rights, English parliamentarian Edmund Burke, considered the father of conservatism, sought to preserve the rule of British monarchy for the sake of tradition. It would seem that tradition can be a two-edged sword.
    Liberals cling to the Declaration of Independence's statement that "all men are created equal," and are known for championed civil rights in various forms. The equality ideal itself was expounded by Enlightenment philosophers such as Locke and Rousseau, who then inspired the likes of Jefferson and Madison.
    Liberalism supports a level playing field for opportunities that transcends wealth, race, religion, and even name. While this contributed whole-cloth to the idea of the American Dream, it did not occur spontaneously, or sprout from tradition, religious or otherwise. The founders believed that human reason would lead to an ever progressing society, in contrast to a never-ending stasis. Equality fueled the potential of reason.
    This belief has led to many breakthroughs that we all benefit from. It has also led to detrimental consequences, when change was instituted without proper foresight, and at great cost to those who might not agree with change.
    In the attempt to demonize liberalism in recent decades, it is sometimes accused of being un-American, despite the founders' intent. The following is a reminder that this charge is completely invalid:

George Washington (a message to American Catholics)
"As mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more able to allow that those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protection of civil government. I hope to see America among the foremost nations in example of justice and liberality."
   

Emerson (writer; father of American Transcendentalism)
"We are reformers in spring and summer. In autumn and winter we stand by the old. Reformers in the morning; conservatives at night. Reform is affirmative; conservatism, negative. Conservatism goes for comfort; reform for truth."

R.H. Fulton
"The highest function of conservatism is to keep what progressiveness has accomplished."

As you can see, liberalism supports many great ideas that are also found in Seed-for-Thought, such as free thinking, a strong focus on reason, challenging stale beliefs and replacing them with a challenging balance of idealism, individuality and appreciation for knowledge. The above words of R.H. Fulton suggest how conservatism and liberalism can co-exist in vital relationship.

Extremes in Relationship

Liberalism, at its best, seeks reform and creativity based on human rights and reasonable assumptions.
    Conservatism, properly applied, takes a more cautious approach, wanting to preserve what is best from the past, restraining liberalism to a slower, more careful pace, so as not to lose of damage that which is good. Many ideals that liberalism instituted are now considered traditions that conservatives protect. For example, the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights, which the American flag represents.
    Taken together, these two political approaches offer a process of development that is cautiously progressive, learning from the past while encouraging intellectual creativity. Conservatism would preserve a foundation of Western values at their best, on which liberalism could build. The reformist energy of one would be prudently slowed by the cautionary restraint of the other.
    We see this today in a dynamic called bipartisanship, when a combined effort between parties results in change that is sound and beneficial for all.
    This dynamic is called bipartisanship, where both sides negotiate together to the satisfaction of each. Bipartisanship, when it happens, is often lauded as a political ideal, the way things were intended. While this sentiment is meant to encourage compromise and civility, it ignores the negative side of partisanship that continues to plagues us.

The Dark Side

More often than not, the primary goal of each party is to increase its own power by increasing the number of its representatives and its influence. A solid majority can easily push through its agenda while completely ignoring the other side. Only a close parity of representatives encourages the kind of bipartisanship referred to earlier, and even then only when necessary. Each side would like to dominate the other, or at least handicap it.
    In a nation almost evenly divided by party vote, this means that those who gain power represent only slightly more than half the population. One or two percentage points cannot be translated as an ideological mandate. When such a mandate is enforced, resentments are inevitable, furthering the divide. Most voters, no matter which party they belong to, are not extremists. Many vote the way they do because of party loyalty or some wedge issue, not for a wholesale ideology.
    With corruption found in both parties, neither holds the moral high-ground either, despite well-rehearsed claims of professional advocates. Party loyalty provokes defending one's own people and actions for as long as possible, hiding embarrassing truths, making graft a little easier to tolerate, and even sanction.
    People accept this as just the way things are, business as usual, or worse, the way our system was designed to work. This acceptance is where we fail as a people. We should expect and demand far better from politics, but the soul of our democratic ideals seems to have been waylaid. We've become complacent as a people, a mass society taught to follow the crowd and not ask many questions. We may complain about leaders, the system, and media demigods, but we fail to grasp that the answers are actually in our hands, and no where else. If enough outspoken citizens demanded accountability, things would improve. Power would return to the people. Corrupt politicians and practices would fall.

Conclusion

Conservatism in the U.S. is actually a reaction to what are perceive to be liberal excesses. In other words, it is not a so much a separate, conflicting ideology. In America, is too rooted in American liberalism, which has provided our traditions, for that. It is an attempt to tone liberalism down, and standardize what we have into a fixed norm. It is nationalizing the results of our original, revolutionary intent and recognizing them as fixed, reliable traditions, a status quo that needs defending. It wants no more change, or very little. When change is inevitable, it should be taken in slow doses that preserve the core of every day life.
    What was perceived as conservative bigotry in the Civil Rights movement of the 60s was actually a call to slow down so that change could happen without forcing new behavior, and in its own, natural time. We saw this a hundred years earlier, when Abraham Lincoln resisted emancipation, believing that slavery would disappear as a matter of moral course, though it might take decades.
    Unfortunately, as in the case of slavery, some problems should not and cannot neatly be put aside for some future resolution. Civil rights cannot be ignored, and resistance to asserting them is tantamount to oppression. Is that radical change? Or is it living up to our true American ideals?
    Nothing is more natural than wanting to safeguard what we have that is good. We shouldn't disrupt or challenge the benefits we've achieved by imposing radical change. This is the essence of conservatism. That what we have and cherish is rooted in the throes of liberal revolution doesn't matter. Once it becomes our staid tradition, it should be treated as such.
    In a sense, this can be seem as a reformist point of view, transitioning initial radicalism into a definable nation.
    Unfortunately, this reformism has not been articulated very well, or even fully understood by those who see long held traditions jeopardized. People respond with anger rather than reason. Taking an adversarial approach, they are more interested in confrontation, distorting the other side as a threatening, purposely choosing opposite views on every issue to further the divide. Why? Because politics is seen as an angry struggle for power rather than a civil discourse. It is assumed that no minds can be changed, so only power can keep things the way they are. And besides, how could conservatism advocate reform, when reform means change that they naturally resist? This is the quagmire of conservatism. It comes from the heart.
    People don't change overnight. What supports the complacency we suffer from has become a cultural problem, a surrendering to the requirements of a mass society, where the implicit message is to merge with the crowd and do what's expected — right or wrong. As a cultural problem, we need to deal with it culturally. We need to examine what stops us from taking control of our democratic process, from asking pertinent questions and rising above the propaganda that political strategists feed us.
    We start by facing the truth: The answers to our problems will never be found in liberalism or conservatism. Never. Complete support for one extreme or the other merely fortifies a stalemate that sinks in its own corruption.
    Common sense tells us that a healthy life embraces change and tradition, not pit one against the other, so that every victory associates itself with loss. It approaches problems directly for reasonable solutions, as vehicles for political gain.
    Can the life of a healthy state be so different? Must it degrade by becoming cynical and inhuman? If it does, it reflects the people who support it, who then carry the blame.
    It is time to turn our backs on media propagandists, campaign strategists, think-tank goons, and political pundits. These professional hucksters flourish on the assumption that the majority of people are easily duped. They are not compatriots of freedom, but rather users of freedom who propagate deception.
    It is time we no longer delight in scandal and innuendo, as political strategists count on. Behind the media presentation of scandal is a hidden motive designed to draw out attention from something else, and paint everyone of a given party as sharing in guilt. There is no honor in this. When corruption is discovered, take care of it according to the law, announce it on the news in a sane, respectful manner, and avoid the media circus.
    It is time we choose to vote according to the worth as candidates, rather than party affiliation or unrelated issues.
    It is also time that we embrace the liberal and conservative traditions that we have, merge them into something positive, and make our democratic system the shining example of government that it can be.

Return