Political parties and politicians like to paint themselves with broad brushes. This is probably so that they can appeal to the broadest segments of the population, especially those who are not motivated enough to dig in and understand the finer points of a candidates belief system, or platform – identifying as a liberal or a conservative is one way to signal to potential voters.

But I am aware that fewer and fewer voters and perhaps politicians understand or can articulate what it means to be liberal, or conservative or, in fact, WHY they favor one over the other.

I have taught my son that liberal, in general means more generous, more open to new ideas. But in the political sense, that generosity can translate into fiscal irresponsibility, where the government through its policies creates groups of people who become dependent on government payouts for their sustenance. In the political sense, the openness to new ideas, often means disassembling the moral and social frameworks that have guided our societies for generations without thought for long term societal impact. The generosity aspect tends to feel like and all for one and one for all in liberal rhetoric, but it tends to get implemented in a way that feels like the federal government has its fingers in everything exerting control over many aspects of our daily life.

I have taught my son that conservative, in general means more prudent, and slower to adopt change. But in the political sense, the prudence can translate into a lack of compassion for the desperate and needy, and the slower to adopt change can feel like a hearkening back to prior periods, rather than finding a true way forward. The more prudent nature of conservatism can feel like pandering to the wealthy, while appearing less than compassionate to the tired huddled masses.

Parties

In the US, we identify the Democratic party as the generally more liberal entity, and the Republican party as the generally more conservative party, but there are certainly broad spectrums of leanings among the members of both parties, and in the general scheme of political thoughts, both American parties are fairly close to the center. This creates a significant question – if both parties are relatively close to the center, why do they fight against each other so hard? Why do they agree so little, when they really have so much in common? Why is it so hard for them to find common ground, and pass legislation that they agree will improve the state of our nation.

If you ask me, political parties are really more about gaining consolidated power than remaining true to any set of ideas. There is a sense among party faithful that if I agree with the other party, then I in essence weaken my own ability to consolidate power. There is a very strong tendency to use hyperbole to paint a political opponent as much further from the center than he really may be – so that I can occupy a more centrist position without having to agree with my opponent.

Aspects

There are definitely different aspects to this liberal or conservative split that can be articulated separately. We can talk about different aspects of policy, and how liberals and conservative pols tend to line up.

1) Federal Policy – determines what policies are decided and what actions are allowed at the federal level of government. Conservative rhetoric tends to advocate smaller federal government, but the past 3 Republican presidents have done the exact opposite. Liberal rhetoric tends to advocate more government oversight and intrusion into the daily life of John Q. Public but the record of the last three democrats in the White House have actually been moderate on this point.

2) Fiscal Policy – determines how we spend the resources that the government gathers in the form of taxes from the public. Liberals tend to support spending on social programs, aimed at helping the poor, the sick, and the elderly. Conservatives tend to favor military spending, and programs that build infrastructure that improves our nations commercial infrastructure. Both of these expenditures are important for the growth of our national economy. Conservatives express concern for social programs that create entitlements that serve to keep the poor dependent on the government, rather than providing real opportunity to rise above. Liberal compassion tends to appear to these population segments as benevolent, and they tend to get votes from those segments as a result, but there is a temptation to consolidate electoral power by keeping those people dependent.

3) Foreign Policy – While conservative rhetoric tends to be more martial and stand-offish to foreign powers, and Liberal rhetoric tends to be more friendly and neighborly, the reality is that foreign policy is more governed by natural interest than political biases. The Obama administration may have acted like they thought a change in rhetoric would convince foreign powers to change their policy to align with ours, but they quickly learned that only action, and a real change in position will affect change in foreign relations. While the Bush administration had taken very hard lines and established specific policies around which there was no negotiating room, Obama’s initial rhetoric was much softer, but when they refused to negotiate on matters of national interest, it became clear that real national interest governed foreign policy not party rhetoric.

4) Trade Policy – Liberal rhetoric seems to be divided on trade. On the one hand, they are progressive, wanting to find the way forward to increase our trade with other nations. On the other hand, they are politically aligned with big labor who wants to keep jobs here and wages high. And these goals interfere with each other, because as we open trade with other nations, our markets get flooded with goods produced in markets where labor is less expensive. Conservative rhetoric tends to be driven by what is good for business, and focusing our trade policy on economic metrics rather than human interest. Both parties are willing to bed strange political fellows in pursuit of economic interest.

5) Social Policy – Here is where the gap between American liberals and conservatives appears to be the widest. Liberal rhetoric tends to be driven by a secular view point which places mankind as the highest arbiter of social values, whereas conservative rhetoric tends to be driven by religious viewpoints which place God as a higher arbiter of social values. So on issues like abortion, capital punishment, protected minority status, education, funding and content, immigration policy there tends to be a larger gap. Religious perspectives tend to be more legalistic, and less inclined to forgive people who break the rules regardless of the “humanity” of the rule breakers. This is likely because religious people tend to be more moralistic and followers of the rules themselves. While liberal rhetoric tends to advocate “tolerance” and “sensitivity” to others, they also want to shut down the public debate about issues like homosexual marriage by describing all rhetoric that disagrees with their position on “alternative lifestyle” as hate speech, attempting to deny their opposition the ability to argue their point. Liberal rhetoric is much more likely to accuse their conservative opponent of extreme views on social issues, as they move further to the left, they are require to paint their conservative opponents who may actually be fairly moderate as extreme so that the liberal can appear to inhabit a position closer to the center.

The Public Square

Over the last 40 years, since the Vietnam era, the liberal perspective has firmly entrenched itself in higher education, with most curriculums advocating liberal social and political views. The liberal perspective has also effectively recruited many non-political celebrities. It is interesting to me that anyone cares what Tom Cruise or Charlton Heston thinks about politics, yet the news media seems to cover that as much as the actual news.

Our Identity

Most of us have some form of liberal or conservative thinking baked into our own political identity. We perceive ourselves as leaning toward liberal or conservative. We may even see our self on one side or the other. We are pulling for our team, to win. We enjoy when our team scores points by getting elected or by winning a debate or by passing some law. The political parties love when we are “on their team”; when we see their wins as our wins. Often it means that we are not thinking independently about the issues or the opposite perspective. My parents were blue dog democrats, who completely followed the party line. I am much less affiliated with a party, but find many of my leanings conservative. I have to work hard to stay objective.

I am conservative because of two core beliefs that I share with our founding fathers:

1) A healthy fear of tyranny, and a desire to limit the governments intrusion into the day to day affairs of man.
2) A firm belief that government programs are not the most efficient way to accomplish anything.

I balance those beliefs with the reality that:

1) Some problems cannot be solved by people directly, and need a governing authority to resolve.

2) Some accomplishments are so big and so broad that it requires a government free from fiscal constraints of people and corporations to accomplish.

 

That is really where my alignment comes from, and all other issues, I take one at a time, rather than aligning with either liberal or conservative views.