Conservatives and Liberals—Who Are They?

 I have been reading and thinking about a subject that many have discussed without fully appreciating. This subject has to do the definition of “liberal” and “conservative,” i.e., “Democrat” and “Republican.”

 The differences between “liberal” and “conservative” have varied over the years in American parlance; and I would like to review some of the movements that have impacted these concepts.

 The origin of the Democrat Party was a part of the heritage of Thomas Jefferson, who envisioned a small government with minimal regulatory powers; his opinion was, also, that slavery was acceptable for the new United States. The attitude of small government and racial segregation maintained itself in Democrat thinking up through the recent administration of Lyndon Johnson. The southern states were solidly in favor of such a definition, and thus—the eponym, “the solid South.” The Democrats were in opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. By the time of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, Democrats has largely conceded the field to the popular movement of civil rights in America for all people, regardless of race; and that Act was passed with wide bipartisan support.

 President Johnson got the Democrats to give up the idea of racial discrimination as the move toward civil rights gained momentum; and, today, the Democrats see themselves as populists, engaging the support and standing for the rights of the majority of the people; and, especially, of disenfranchised and disempowered people groups in the country. They certainly do not believe in slavery!

 The Republican Party, on the other hand arose from the disintegration of the Whig Party during the administration of President Abraham Lincoln. The Republicans organized under the theme of abolition of slavery. They were, at that time, solidly the party of the weak and disenfranchised. Of course, now, neither party is in favor of slavery. As a matter of fact, both parties believe that they represent the interests of the large majority of the peoples. Only…they think differently about such ideas as equality, liberty, general good, etc. In the idea of equality, the Democrats think of equality as “equal outcomes;” and the Republicans think of it as “equal opportunity.”

Early on, in the 19^th Century and the early part of the 20^th Century, both Democrat and Republican parties had the same ethical goal, i.e., to produce a better American. But…they had different ideas of how to do that—and different political methods and values for which they stood. Nevertheless, that was basically what they were both trying to do. As the 20^th Century wore on, the drive for improvement of the populace gradually waned; and the goal of American society became to increase the gross domestic product and to distribute it equally. That objective, undertaken, under the philosophical auspices of the concept of pragmatism, which I alluded to in a recent blog post about William James (August 30, 2013), was the touchstone of a remarkable development. America became the most economically successful nation the world had ever seen. Concurrently, we also became the most materialistic country the world had ever seen.

Another change occurred in the doctrine and method of the American liberal. As the 20^th Century wore on, liberals began to dismiss the moral distinctives that had characterized both Democrat and Republican parties. That was the part of the liberal metamorphosis that pushed me away from that ideology. Liberals introduced and pushed for such things as no-fault divorce, making divorce easier and more frequent; elimination of prayer in school, discounting the role of Christianity in our society; the gay agenda; liberalized abortion; free sex; multinationalism; and the women’s movement. Eventually, the liberal position morphed into such things as affirmative action and all the baggage attached to the idea of diversity. Some of these things were good; but some of them produced more disappointment than benefit. All of these changes culminated in a concept of civil rights that discounted the goods of classical Christianity. For these reasons, I could no longer call myself a liberal—I began to understand my position as conservative in the modern sense.

During the early part of the 20^th Century, a decided change occurred in the definition of what might be called the liberal/conservative mystique or philosophy of the people. It all began in Europe. Prior to that time, what is now called “classical liberalism” was the rule in most countries. Classical liberals still held the ideas of small government, entrepreneurism, and a hands-off government regulatory policy. Free enterprise was the order of the day. However, in Italy, these new 20^th Century liberals changed their tune—the group encapsulated the same people, i.e., young people, university students and faculty, powerful government officials, and union members. But…their views and methods changed drastically. They became dissatisfied with social conditions as they saw them; and they were enamored with the rhetoric of Mussolini. He taught that more government control could solve their problems—eventually, he convinced most of the Italian population that a totalitarian state was what was needed. That form of government is now called Fascism; and it is wrongly attributed to “right wing politics;” that form of government was brought into power by those who called themselves liberals.

 We have a group in America, now, that are called liberals. And…their goals and methods are not so different from the Italian liberals of the late 1930’s. Today’s liberals believe that big government and take-over of business by government is the best idea. The population groups that backed Mussolini are exactly the same groups that back Barack Obama, today, i.e., university people, statists, and unions. But…I am afraid that their methods and ideas might produce the same effect as the fascism of Italy nearly a century ago. That is the fear I have; and my fear of this kind of national effect is shared by many good-thinking people. That is one reason why I am a conservative.

 All this is not to say that liberalism has no place in the thinking of the patriotic American. Today’s liberal in America stands for open-minded thinking and the embracing of new ways. Surely, we need to consider these attitudes.  

Conservatism is a form of thinking that is not to be pushed down into the trash barrel. Conservatives are not dopes who think that every new idea is bad—we, conservatives, will adopt change and improvement in the society. But…we do not like to throw things away that have served well in the past. The lessons that our nation has learned and that have succeeded in producing a great nation and economy should be preserved.

One problem we have in accomplishing this is that liberals think that we don’t have any sense. To them, we seem like bigots who deserve no consideration from those of a progressive mindset. That conclusion is borne out by good research. If you don’t think so, I would refer you to the book, The Righteous Mind, by Jonathan Haidt. It is written by a self-proclaimed liberal; and he has very well pointed out that my opinion of the liberal mind is quite accurate. He also pointed out that conservatives, in general, do not look down on liberals in a reciprocal manner. Conservatives are much better at objectively evaluating the arguments generated on the left side of the aisle.

The upstart of this kind of development I have outlined above ought to make us consider well the constructive things we can derive in learning from one another about our society and the good things we each have to offer.  

The Artlessness of War

Twenty-five hundred years ago, a book was written by Sun Tzu, a Chinese man—The Art of War. In his book, the author stressed that in order to win a war or a battle, it is absolutely necessary to attack with direction and surprise. Without that, victory is very likely elusive.

Now, American armed forces are being directed by a president who has absolutely disavowed that basic principle of warfare. He has clearly notified our Syrian enemy of his strategy and his tactics, including targets he plans to hit and targets he intends to avoid. He has stated that he is not trying to unseat the government of Syria. And…he has said that he may attack tomorrow, next week, or next month! Apparently, there is plenty of time for an attack; and for the first time in wartime history, there is no urgency in making a military move. All this delay is only giving the enemy plenty of time to move all military targets out of harm’s way, so it can be employed later to kill more civilians and children.

 
This attitude is absolutely unbelievable for a military commander. These stupid moves are being backed up, apparently, by our Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey. General Dempsey seems to me just a mouthpiece for a president committed to a pointless and undirected symbolic move which is probably only going to be effective in promoting the president as one who decisively moves at a point of emergency—at least, that’s the way the president wants the whole situation to appear to the uninformed voter.