Defintions

Recently some twit in my college newspaper wrote a column touting conservatism as the cure for the country’s ills. Sadly, what was painfully obvious is that he had no idea what conservatism is: Small government and low taxes would supposedly cure of our economic woes, but we should maintain a large military, be interventionist in world politics and invasive of citizen private lives vis-avis the Patriot Act and wire tapping.

That’s not conservatism.

Not to mention that it’s going to take a heck of a lot more than tax breaks to solve all of our economic problems like a falling currency value, shaky stock market, rising energy costs and an deficit spiraling out of control.

Man, I hate stupid people.

So here now, for the edification of him and anyone else who throws around the term "liberal" and "conservative" casually are the REAL definitions of what Liberal and Conservative are.

Disclaimer: These definitions for American Liberalism and Conservatism only. These definitions change depending on what country is being discussed. In the U.K. for example, they are nearly reversed. I am including links to wikipedia articles on each of these definitions. I understand wiki's current reputation but still feel it is a worth while resource, especially if one reads the "Talk Pages". So consider these starting points to learn more about the history of the country and this movement in particular. These articles include try to include the cultural definitions of liberal and conservative, which are really different topics. Someone can be culturally conservative, and yet still believe in the rights of the individual. For example they can refuse to have guns in their home, and yet not feel it is the government’s right to ban guns altogether. The following are the political definitions only.

Conservatives do believe in a small government and low taxes, but they believe in those principles because they feel the government should stay out of the private lives and business. A conservative may have a pro-life political stance, but ruling over that is the idea that it is a private matter, which is just what George H.W. Bush said when asked about abortion law: “It’s none of my business.” They believe government should only be big enough to run the country’s infrastructure and maintain a standing army for national defense. National defense only. Conservatives are isolationist in regards to world politics, as indeed Washington himself recommended. They favor the right of the individual and the state over the right of the federal government and believe that social charity is not the responsibility of the government, but the individual. For example, the government shouldn’t be supporting people who are out of work, churches and private charity organizations should.

American Liberals practice a form of progressivism. They believe the government can be used to improve people’s lives. They do believe in a larger government that gets involved (or interferes, as conservatives would say) in people’s lives and business to make the country better. They see the role of the federal government being superior to that of the state and believe the government needs to step in to promote personal American wellbeing with programs, such as rural electrification, social security and subsidized housing, as well as social change, such as with Civil Rights. They also belive the government should step in to regulate business to create a more stable ecconomy (and recently environment). Liberals extend that philosophy into the world wide arena believing the U.S. should use it’s position as one of the most powerful nations in the world to make a world a better place. FDR was a liberal.

Please note neither of these definitions includes supporting or opposing the Bush administration but only addreses the role of government in American lives. That's because the Bush adminstration is neither conservative nor liberal. It’s also explains why Terri Shiavo became such a watershed for them: the attempt of government to interfere in a private family matter flew directly in the face of conservative ideals of individual rights. Bush’s support in the GOP has been on a downward spiral ever since.

Most American’s fall somewhere in between. They may favor government interference on some issues while favoring individual or states rights on others. They may favor government interference in issues such as gun control, but be against the Defense of Marriage Act. Or they may be Pro-Life, but believe strongly in Freedom of Speech and so on. The truth is America needs both Conservatives and Liberals to maintain it’s greatness. Liberalism ensures that the country as a whole progresses into this new millennium, keeping up with the rest of the world as well as ensuring that the country keeps up with social and cultural change (see Civil Rights again), while conservatives (real conservatives) ensure that individual rights and freedoms do not get trampled in the mad rush forward. Liberals push the country forward while conservatives ensure that that it does not move too far, too fast. Both are needed for it is the dynamic between the two that is most valuable to this country.

Neoconservatism came out of the cold war and is the brand of conservatism practiced by the Bush administration. It takes what I see as the worst aspects of each and blends them into a mean-spirited whole. Neo-Conservatives favor government interference in private lives to uphold socially conservative ideals while giving big business a free hand. They favor a foreign policy of military intervention to replace any foreign government with a democracy, especially if it’s something materially profitable. (Note, no neo-conservative has advocated replacing the tyrannical monarchy of Saudi Arabia with a democracy.) They do not favor spending tax dollars on social programs such as education, unemployment, social security and subsidized housing and wish to allow business a much freer hand to operate by taking down unions and dismantling the EPA. They also don’t seem too fond of the Constitution.

Quite frankly, I view neo-conservatives as a blight on the American political landscape. They are extremists and outdated ones at that. They still believe they are operating in the world of the Cold War and are trying to treat Terrorism as the new USSR. They think that there is a form of "domino effect" they have to stop by ensuring that all nations are democratic. But terrorism is not a country, it isn't even a unified political philosophy like Communism was. It's a type of action. You can have communist terrorists, democratic terrorists, religious terrorists and so on. Any philosophy and theology in the world there are, they can each have terrorist groups. (Well, not Buddhism.) Not to mention, terrorists can move. You take over a country, they just move somewhere else. That’s sort of the entire point of terrorism: Not to be there when the guys in white hats show up. Neocons haven't cottoned to the fact that there is no "evil empire" with satellite nations. The world has changed.

And then there are the attacks on American rights and liberties. No, neo-conservatives should have never gained such power. They need to be relegated to the fringe where they belong so we can get back to running the country.