Conservatism vs. Liberalism Part I: A Proud Liberal (by guest author Saylor Smith)
February 27, 2009 12 Comments
This is the first in the two part series Conservatism vs. Liberalism. Forming the underpinning of our two most prominent political parties, the ideological debate over Conservatism and Liberalism is as old as our nation’s founding. Now, with a new administration in office, this debate has been reinvigorated. Part I features guest author Saylor Smith, offering a summary of Liberalism.
As a lifelong liberal, I look askance at the ascendance over the past two-and-a-half decades of the conservative political cause. President Ronald Reagan gave conservatism legitimacy in the 1980′s after its nearly two decades of decline. How, in recent years, did “liberal” become a pejorative hurled by conservative or moderate politicians at their left-leaning opponents? Why do liberals themselves now even run from the characterization, hiding behind the less specific and presumably safer “progressive”?
As I recall, liberals gave us Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, civil rights and women’s rights legislation, farm subsidies, labor union rights laws, the minimum wage, FDIC, FCC, FHA and the Federal Reserve system, among many others, virtually all of which were consistently opposed by conservatives.
A liberal believes the government can and should solve many of society’s problems. A conservative believes big business should be granted the unregulated power to operate in society – corporate scandals of the past several years, the Wall Street meltdown and the banking crisis of the past few weeks certainly help to contradict that theory. Clearly, it is a whole lot easier to remove a government official who has to answer to the voters than it is to battle the powerful influences of millionaire corporate heads of such multi-nationals as Enron, Halliburton, Mobil and the insurance, tobacco and pharmaceutical companies, many of which operate, thanks to the conservative movement, with fewer governmental regulations.
It is “liberal” to favor environmental laws for the protection of our air and water; it is “conservative” to support the “rights” of oil, tobacco and coal companies to operate free of regulations. It is “liberal” to argue for reduced taxes for citizens with lower and middle incomes; it is “conservative” to argue for lower taxes for the richest corporations and for citizens with the highest incomes. It is “liberal” to favor reasonable gun control legislation, including laws that outlaw the sale and ownership of assault weapons; it is “conservative” to support every citizen’s right to own and use guns. It is “liberal” to favor laws that grant equal rights to all American citizens; it is “conservative” to oppose equal rights for those individuals deemed “unworthy.” It is “liberal” to insist that a wealthy, civilized nation such as ours should provide health insurance for all of its citizens; it is “conservative” to insist that every man or woman should shift for him- or herself. It is “liberal” to argue that taxpayers should support – even with their pocketbooks – strong, safe public schools; it is “conservative” to insist that public education can get by on less. Liberals fight for First Amendment rights, especially the constitutional guarantees of a free press and free speech; conservatives fight for the Second Amendment guarantee that, as they see it, a citizen may carry a gun at any and all times and places. Liberals fight for an Equal Rights Amendment to expand rights of citizenship; conservatives fight for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, thereby denying rights of citizenship to a certain group.
The governmental concept of liberalism is, I believe, responsible for developing and strengthening one of the greatest forces for good in our society, protection of the minority from the “tyranny of the majority,” an often overlooked hazard in a democratic society. Without that protection, groups such as African-Americans, Latino-Americans, Asian Americans, Native Americans, Muslims, Jewish Americans, women and seniors might never have gained their rightful standing as full-fledged citizens. Gay and lesbian Americans continue the fight.
Liberalism is defined in “Webster’s Dictionary” as “a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of man, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties.” Conservatism is defined as “a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change.” Neither political philosophy is “correct,” but it seems fair to argue that over the past seventy-five years the unique form of liberalism that developed in the United States has been the most powerful and consistent force for good on the face of the earth.
I, for one, am proud to add my name to the bottom of a list of American liberals that includes Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Adlai Stevenson, John, Robert and Ted Kennedy, Hubert Humphrey, George McGovern, Martin Luther King, Jr. and, yes, Barack Obama.
-Guest author Saylor Smith on TruPolitics.net
“Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Farm Subsidies, Labor Union Rights laws, the minimum wage, FDIC, FCC, FHA, Federal Reserve”
When I look at that list I see shackles on the prosperity of all Americans, in every tax bracket and in every race. In fact, you have managed to pick 4 areas that the majority of economists (Real Clear Markets) actually agree are bad for the economy (SS, Farm, Min wage and the Fed)
I see SS, Medicare and Medicaid bankrupting the future of my children and grandchildren. I see Labor Union “Rights” breaking the back of the auto industry (not to mention others). I see minimum wage laws creating unemployment in young and low skilled workers (way to get that work ethic going). I see the FDIC and Federal Reserve directly responsible for the depreciation of the dollar and all the “bubble bursts” since they were formed.
So we can thank liberal thought, not for these “gifts” it has bestowed on humanity, but for claiming responsibilty for the disasters they create.
Farm subsidies were good for the time, but most of them should be let go, however for you to actually believe that social security wasn’t a good thing…. People were starving before social security… it saved hundreds and thousands of families.
As far as MLK being republican, it is surprising, but true that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican. In that era, almost all black Americans were Republicans… because back the republican party was more liberal as far as giving equal rights to both blacks and white…. obviously now in this day of age and because things change, the democratic party is the more liberal thinking party and tries to give equal rights to any human no matter race, sexual orientation…
I can only hope that in the near future we will stop all the hate, and treat all humans equally.
I honestly have no idea what you are talking about with regards to Social Security. It started out as socialism-lite during FDR’s reign and has turned into a ponzi scheme that dwarfs Bernie Madoff’s.
Actually looked it up and he never registered republican! He voted for Kennedy, and never officially as far as I can tell registered for either party.
In my exhaustive 3 minute search I couldn’t find that. Do you have a source?
If he did, I wonder if he regretted that decision seeing how JFK voted against the 1957 Civil Rights Act, opposed the 1963 march on Washington and through his brother had MLK Jr wiretapped and investigated by the FBI for being a communist in order to undermine his cause.
Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was a registered republican…
Well Ender…that’s your opinion. I have to say that this article was a breath of fresh air. Conservatives like Ender always argue that these social programs should not be judged upon their intent, but their results. I feel that it is a misleading assessment…without the good intentions from our people and politicians only evil will prevail (like it has for most of America’s history!).
Conservatives like yourself often argue against labor unions. It’s fair that someone can rely upon a consistent raise from year to year. The highest paid employees should be those that have been there the longest and therefore given the most overall work for the company. The conservative argues that the hardest working employees should get the biggest raises and be paid the most letting the older men and woman who have poured their life into the company get screwed over because they can’t work as hard anymore. Just because a few lazier employees can get away with not working hard with job security and consistant raises, does not mean the whole system is corrupt. The goodwill and goodness of man will ultimately prevail and allow the company’s to succeed. The company’s that unionize will ultimately rise to the top of the market because their competant happy employees will make them succeed, while the soul-wretching companies like Wal-Mart and Toyota will fall by the wayside. Then Liberalism will take its rightful place upon the ideological throne, while Conservatism is only known by the engraving upone its ideological tombstone.
I can’t believe that conservatives have a problem with the schools that are provided. They argue that private schools produce better results with less money given each student, but that’s because the private schools are able to give the children more individualized career training since they don’t have to meet the same standards. What would be ideal is if we got rid of all private schools and had everyone go to the public schools. We could eliminate costs by finding out what the kids are good at, and placing them into a curriculum specifically designed for a career that our EXPERTS would be able to assess. The world would be happier because they would be able to succeed, we would save costs by eliminating extra courses not needed for that person (someone who is going to be a math teacher doesn’t need to learn history right!), and people would not need to waste time, energy, money, and stress trying to figure out what they think they want to do.
Bigger government always leads to better, more efficient living.
Jose, those are some really good points. I haven’t ever thought about it that way. It is hard to see companies like Walmart and Toyota failing, but eventually happy employees will outproduce the downtrodden ones (plus its karma!).
I like how you introduced it by showing that the good intentions by the liberal politicians will eventually produce good results, but the evil intentions by conservatives will never be able to produce beneficial and fair results. Simply Brilliant!
Walmart and Toyota will fail? Uh, look at GM and Chrysler and your happy union employees. Unions and tenure both reward mediocrity PERIOD
Look at Toyota now…. uh oh.
Pingback: The Federal Reserve: How It Hurts You-Part 1 « The Daily Switch
Let’s not rely on an outdated past to deal with a challenging future. In one month with hyperactive govt spending, we are headed for disaster. What a mistake in electing Obama (who has had more parties in the WH in one month than any other President in recent history. “Let them eat cake” I guess — no fiscal restraint in the White House!).