Lawson for Congress

Howdy, y’all! I’m the new blogger for Lawson for Congress. My name is Paige Michael-Shetley, and I am the Youth Coordinator for the campaign. I will be a contributor to the blog on as frequent of a basis as I can. I will mainly be making posts related to economics (my specialty) and abstract philosophy, but occasionally I will meander into other areas.

For my first post, I would like to recycle a post I made on my own blog, Liberty Republicans, a few months ago. (Note: Posts I make on that website represent only my own views, not necessarily those of B.J.) This is a post of which I am particularly proud, and I think all of us who are engaged in political could do quite well to give it a read and take its lessons to heart.

One of the unfortunate realities of today’s political environment is the fixation on the idea of a divide between two groups: the Conservatives vs. the Liberals. Perhaps this is a natural consequence of a society that cherishes competition (and God knows how much I cherish competition myself), but it is unfortunate that we should prioritize association with these identities and the clash between them to the point where we treat the situation the same as Yankees vs. Red Sox. (Or, to use an example with more local and personal relevance, Carolina vs. The University of New Jersey at Durham.) But rarely is the question ever asked: what does it truly mean to be conservative or a liberal?

As one studies political philosophy extensively, one finds that the labels “conservative” and “liberal” typically do not describe an unmistakably clear set of policy positions. It is often the case that “hyphenation” of these terms develops: the segmentation of these groups into certain subgroups.

For instance, the term “paleoconservative” is used to describe conservatives of the Pat Buchanan variety: protectionist, isolationist, culturally conservative, fiscally conservative, and pro-civil liberties. This is in contrast to the “neoconservatives,” as represented by the Bush Administration, who generally favor trade benefiting special interests, military interventionism, restriction of civil liberties in the name of security, and are not as concerned with fiscal restraint, favoring “supply-side” ideas about taxes and tolerating the growth of the welfare state. However, even within these subgroups there can exist substantive disagreement on certain issues.

For example, in the paleoconservative tent, there can be a disagreement over what role the federal government should play in regulating cultural matters. Typically, paleoconservatives tend to support adherence to federalism, whereas some, like Buchanan, tend to favor a more activist approach using the federal government to preserve traditional culture. Furthermore, within the neoconservative tent, an issue of considerable divide tends to be immigration, with those such as President Bush and Senator John McCain favoring less restrictive immigration policies, while others like Duncan Hunter favoring more restrictive policies. One achieves a similar analysis when observing liberalism.

So, what do the terms “conservative” and “liberal” really mean in the realm of politics? I contend that they mean exactly what they mean in every other realm of life. From a search on Merriam Webster online, one finds this definition of “conservative“:

3 a: tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions : traditional b: marked by moderation or caution c: marked by or relating to traditional norms of taste, elegance, style, or manners

As for liberalism? Well, quite a few ideas come to light here:

2 a: marked by generosity : openhanded b: given or provided in a generous and openhanded way c: ample full
4: not literal or strict : loose
5: broad-minded; especially : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms

Thinking about these definitions of “conservative” and “liberal,” can you unmistakably pin down someone’s position on any issue whatsoever when they possess conservative or liberal attitudes and/or world views? Let’s take, for instance, the Bush tax cuts. By these definitions, one who is a “conservative” may have objected to them on the grounds that they would produce large deficits, if conservatism is indeed “marked by moderation or caution.” On the other hand, one could view the tax cuts as quite a liberal policy, given that they were “provided in a generous and openhanded way.” In fact, an analogous situation occurred in the 1960s: conservatives in Congress opposed the tax cut proposals of the Johnson Administration, an administration that history has tended to label as the poster-child of American liberalism, on the fear that they would produce large deficits. Instead of this scenario playing out in 2001 and 2003 when the tax debates came up, we have seen the exact opposite situation: the tax cuts were linked to the “conservative” position, while opposition to them was considered the “liberal” position.

It appears, therefore, that the terms “conservative” and “liberal” are rather useless for defining consistent and predictable sets of political positions. Instead, these labels describe attitudes and the psychological approach through which one arrives at positions. Conservatives value adhering to tradition, caution, and restraint from radical change. Liberals value anti-orthodoxy and generosity, and they tend to possess more lax attitudes toward society and to react more favorably to change. What it all boils down to is that the individual who possesses these attitudes is ultimately the authority over what positions they take based on these attitudes and their own understanding of issues.

Hence, we have arrived at the source of the division in our political system. It is precisely because we in society seek so firmly to establish a form of team sport in politics, with the “liberals” vs. “conservatives,” where we view politicos and voters as members of these two teams and cheer them on as they take on our opponents, that we have established this rigid division in our political system and our society as a whole. Identity politics, and particularly party politics, is a particularly divisive and destructive form of collectivism that suggests we maintain loyalty to groups rather than loyalty to our own attitudes, world-views, and unique conclusions on policy positions. It is only when we begin to view ourselves and each other as individuals with unique perspectives, and understand what is truly meant by the terms “conservative” and “liberal,” that we can end the division of today and conduct ourselves with the primary motivation of what is best for our country.

This entry was posted on Thursday, May 15th, 2008 at 9:57 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.