Posted on 05/10/2002 8:26:22 AM PDT by Starmaker
The answer to this question, as used in political connotation, requires an understanding of the respective terms. This process involves the semantics of their use in discourse.
It stands to reason that a mutual understanding of the words and terms when utilized in discussions is required for communication between the parties involved to convey true meaning to the discourse. This is especially true when the words and terms are expressed in ideological and political platforms and through the media to the public at large. Unfortunately the dictionary usually only deals in defining words and is insufficient in providing the required semantical definition necessary for one to clearly obtain true meaning in their actual application.
To further confuse the issue, we find in conversation the interchange of the words liberal with being — to the left — and conservative as being — to the right. This apparently arose from the use of the terms in the parliaments of foreign countries; the parts of the parliamentary chambers located to the right and left of the presiding officers accordingly representing conservative and liberal elements respectively. Adding additional complication we find, at times, connotations used tying — to the far right — as tending towards fascism and — to the far left — towards socialism or even communism.
Unfortunately, these terms are flagrantly interchanged by activists, politicians and those in the media. This results in the public receiving distorted and frequently misrepresentation of the facts. Our interest here is to the mis-information being conveyed to the American people that accordingly distorts their ability to clearly understand the meaning of the rhetoric to which they are exposed.
Looking to the past, it is no wonder that confusion exists regarding the understanding of what the terms liberal and conservative really mean. It is only in the last century that the term liberal has become associated with socialism. This collectivist ideology involves the redistribution of income and wealth with an accordingly greater control by the central government over the interactions of economic enterprise. Prior to this evolutionary change, being liberal had the reverse meaning of being in strong support of individual freedom with an attendant limited role of government in one´s life.
The term liberalism was coined in Europe somewhere in the late 17th or early 18th century to represent a political philosophy that emphasized limited government with individual freedom and civil liberties. It promoted representative government and property rights along with freedom of religion In economic matters it favored non-interference from government since the forces of the marketplace would provide the best results for the nation´s people. Thus, at its prime liberalism represented limited government with a separation of powers among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches and economic free enterprise. Sounds like present day conservatism doesn´t it?
The term conservatism was coined to represent beliefs that arose to counter liberalism . Essentially, it supported the existing distribution of power, wealth and attendant social status. These beliefs included emphasizing faith and tradition ahead of freedom of thought and speech, as well as, supporting the total interest of society over those of its individual members. Sounds to a degree like present day liberalism doesn´t it?
Unlike Europe, America in the process of enacting a Constitution had developed political beliefs that included economic individualism and the limitation of government power. This was incorporated into the Constitution. This did not follow the beliefs underlying European conservatism but was in fact closer to European liberalism. The American beliefs accepted the concepts of a free market and the personal acquisition of property by individuals. Individual freedoms and property rights were representative of attendant moral, religious, political, and civil rights. As the provisions of the Constitution decreed, the federal government was limited to acting in those areas wherein the states themselves did not have that ability, in inter-state matters and in foreign relations. Great importance was placed on separation of powers, judicial review, and states' rights as opposed to federal power. This then became the foundation of American conservatism.
Entering into the 20th century Americans generally accepted these principles that were to carry the conservative label. However, there was a political movement evolving that could now be endowed with the new label of liberalism, American style, that had beliefs that government should be more involved in social issues and in controlling the free market. Since the economy had become more complex as it expanded , these liberal elements began to support the idea that the government could best promote the interests of its citizens by regulating the economy and having government provide for the welfare of its citizenry. In addition they wanted government to correct economic deficiencies they believed to be caused by unregulated capitalism. They supported progressive taxation, antitrust laws, a minimum wage, social security, public education, safety and health regulations, consumer protection and environmental preservation laws. Some of them became socialists, although not necessarily openly supporting Marxism and communism.
These elements eventually found a way, albeit gradually, to change the course of government. The federal government, supported by three quarters of the state legislatures, aided and abetted these elements in enacting the 16th Amendment to the Constitution in 1913 taxing the income of wage earners. Although at first it placed only a nominal tax on those with extraordinarily high incomes, with time it evolved into a broad based tax on virtually all income. The federal government was now able to usurp those states rights enumerated under the Constitution, redirecting income taxes collected from residents of one state to the benefit of residents of other states and to federal programs that in the past may have been entrusted to the actions of individual states.
The American liberal received another big boost with passage of a package of social programs entitled — The New Deal. President Franklin D. Roosevelt I introduced the New Deal in 1933 in an attempt to reverse the economic downturn and provide for those in society having been adversely affected economically by the great depression following the stock market crash in 1929. This New Deal legislation placed restraints on the free market activities, allowed government to intervene in the economy, heavily increased taxes and increased the size of government. However, it took the sale of materials to our future allies and then later for our own use at home, and the tightening of the belts by those Americans supporting our troops, to bring the economy back to relatively normal.
During this period American conservatism developed adherents that did not approve of the New Deal and promoted the resurgence of a free-market economy. They continued in this pursuit and in the presidential election of 1964 conservative Republicans supported Barry Goldwater whose book — The Conscience of a Conservative — espoused the principles of conservatism. Although he lost the election conservative beliefs continued to be espoused and in 1980, Ronald Reagan a strong supporter of Goldwater, took over the conservative mantel, ran and won the Presidency. His call for patriotism, religious and moral values, as well as, strong opposition to high taxes, government controls, and federal spending was the motivation for his support by the majority of Americans.
With this background perhaps we have the foundation to simplify the meaning of the terms, as they apply to an individual American, with which we are dealing in the light of today´s world. Let´s try for definitions that can be easily understood after delineating and reviewing what has been stated heretofore.
Conservatism — from the foregoing we find that this term conveys the following:
Simplified Definition:
An ideal conservative believes in the importance of the individual person, including the fetus, and the family structure and that it is the responsibility for the individuals within each family to do as much as they can for themselves before asking for assistance. When assistance is needed the progressive route taken is community, city, county, state and federal, in that order, with the federal government the avenue of last resort. A conservative believes in the least government possible.
Liberalism – from the foregoing we find that this term conveys the following:
Simplified definition:
An ideal liberal takes the completely opposite position to an ideal conservative, vying for a socialistic form of government working from the top down wherein the freedom of the individual is compromised for the anticipated good of the collective group.
Please note that these definitions do not include side issues such as abortion, gun control, immigration, campaign reform etc. Conservatives and liberals may have similar positions without compromising their respective ideal ideology.
In summation, the fundamental difference between a liberal and conservative is whether an individual is allowed the freedom, with attendant responsibility, to freely function in society – or – whether an individual´s interests are subservient to the collective interest of the members of society. One must either be one or the other because once the collective interest takes precedence an individual´s freedom is compromised, then it just becomes a matter of degree as to the extent. A liberal who compromises his ideal ideology may consider himself a moderate liberal but is still a liberal. It is difficult for a conservative to be a moderate conservative because any compromise involves usurping individual freedom and attendant personal responsibility and this would then tend to define him as a moderate liberal.
Now, are you liberal or conservative?
To comment on this article or express your opinion directly to the author, you are invited to e-mail Ben at ratadv@pacbell.net .
And that is that he had something meaningful to add and you didn't?
There's the liberdopian problem in a nutshell. Liberdopians see everything through a pro-dope lens
And you look at everything through the fog of superstitious paranoia, Kevin. My comment involved looking at the WOD through the lens of societal protection vs individual rights. If you think that is a pro-dope lens, you are mistaken. But the fact that you found it necessary to clip my sentence in half to convey a false impression shows more. It shows you cannot support your views without resorting to lies.
Ah, so you're a socialist?
Just to clarify: (to the best of my knowledge …) there is no documented exclusive homosexual behavior in the animal kingdom. Some small groups of female seagulls have been noted to form female-female pair bonds in the absence of males, but those female seagulls have also been noted to quickly abandon each other in the presence of males, and to form male-female bonds with whatever males are available. Bonobo chimpanzees have been observed engaged in same sex dominance / submission displays that appear sexual in nature, but those same chimps do have sex with members of the opposite sex.
In fact, I would be interested to know if there are documented examples of exclusive homosexuality (as opposed to bisexuality) in the wild. Not that I really care, since I believe that people should not be limited to whatever sexual expression is documented in other species, but writing this little blurb has piqued my curiosity. Please respond to this post if you are aware of same.
|
Newbie
Refreshingly honest. Why would anyone want to spend the time it would take to get the information you wanted, though, since it would be pointless? Here's a hint. Learn the ways of the Google, and educate yourself.
Take it up with my ex--she receives the bulk of my reparations payments currently. :)
I'm a newbie too....November 2000....another election recruit.....I would have joined earlier....I just never hit the Drudge link when it was around. I found out from Lucianne....ironic I know.
Even Al Gore could make this statement (there's no such thing as 100% liberal or conservative... but there is such thing as 95%.)...
Your comments give you away. You've only been here one day, and everything you've espoused sounds left of center to me.
A good debate is always welcome at FR, but have your facts ready if you want to be taken seriously.
Actually the RKBA is more of an issue for me than the Wo(some)D, so it would seem that your statement is not true or even generally true, considering the libertarian thought I see here and elsewhere.
BTW, what does "pro-drug" actually mean? My MD just gave me a couple of prescriptions, and I intend to fill them and use them. Does that fit> Or does it mean one who promotes the abuse of any and all 'drugs' without regard to laws or responsiblities?
As it sits, your term "pro-drug" is meaningless propoganda that you use for inflammatory rhetoric since it has only relative, not absolute or objective meaning.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.