This is the last link I intend to publish on this subject. It is a little more detailed than the others and more explanatory. As of yet there have been no liberal explanations of what ''true liberalism'' is all about.
''The Difference Between Conservatives and Liberals
A couple of days ago, Rip set forth a challenge to Russell and I to describe the differences between liberalism and conservatism. This is even more challenging for me than it might be otherwise, because while I am conservative on some issues, I disagree with mainstream conservatism on others. For the sake of the discussion, though, I'll do my best to extrapolate.
Russell presents as his thesis below that a principal difference between liberalism and conservatism is that liberalism identifies with the "other" more often. He then thoughtfully provides a counter-example in the abortion debate. Here are some more groups with which I believe liberalism as ontology not only demonstrates little empathy, but in some cases open hostility:
Religious people
Wealthy people
White people --particularly white men, and even more particularly conservative white men
Asians as a minority group
Republicans
Alleged white-collar criminals (heard any liberals defending Enron executives recently?)
Whatever else one can say about liberalism, it isn't really about identifying with people who aren't like liberals. Unfortunately, feeling more empathy for those with whom we identify, and less for those with whom we don't, is not a conservative trait. It's a human trait.
Okay then, so what is liberalism about, in my view? What is it that liberalism thinks some minority groups, the environment, criminals, homosexuals, other nations, drug users, and the poor have in common?
Victimhood. To a liberal, they are all victims. Liberalism splits the world into pieces and looks for the external cause of the challenges each piece faces. The environment is the victim of Big Business and Big Oil. Criminals are victims of their upbringing, of an unfair system, and of religious zealots who would put them all to death. Homosexuals are victims of their own biology and of religious zealots who would oppress them. Other nations are victims of the United States and of neo-conservatives who would oppress them. Drug users are victims of strict drug laws and of religious zealots who would throw them in jail. Minorities--some of them, anyway--are victims of white men. Women that are pregnant but do not wish to be are victims of circumstance and/or of the men that made them pregnant. The poor are victims of their initial economic standing in life and of the rich, including Big Business.
This is the first of three differences I see between liberalism and conservatism. Liberalism sees the individual--person, plant, and animal--as to a large degree powerless victims of fate or of an oppressor, who must be saved by the intervention of others--in particular, government. Conservatism, on the other hand, sees the individual as basically powerful, as valuable, and as both capable of and responsible for their own greatness. A good conservative wants to see each and every individual reach their highest potential, regardless of whether that person is white, black, rich, poor, virtuous, a criminal, straight, gay, American or not. They believe that nothing can elevate individuals higher than each person striving in freedom to be more, to be better, to be more successful. And they believe that in almost all ways, government not only works badly, but actively impedes the striving for individual greatness that provides the greatest opportunity for people, including the least fortunate among us, to elevate themselves. Conservatives see government as a necessary evil, really good at only one thing: the application of force. The job of government is to use force when needed to protect its citizens from the use of force by others. That means the military, for protection from hostile forces, and law enforcement for protection from criminals. And yet conservatives do believe that people need help from time to time. They believe that it is important to help those less fortunate then themselves, but think government as the wrong way to do it--not only ineffective, but also corrosive to the individual's own sense of responsibility for their own success.
A second difference between liberalism and conservatism is that both liberals and conservatives empathize with people, but liberals define their policy by reacting directly to that empathy, whereas conservatives tend to take, as Rip says, a more systems-oriented view of the world. That's where liberals get the idea that conservatism doesn't empathize. It does--but it also says there is a bigger picture that liberalism misses.
Conservatives empathize with the environment, for example, but perceive much of the "science" that says it is in grave jeopardy to be politically motivated. They don't believe the environment is in as much jeapordy as some--and liberalism--would have one believe. They believe that responsible stewardship of the environment need not require the harm to the economy--and, disproportionably, the poor--that would result from many liberal policies. And they believe that, in some cases, the liberal agenda would not in the end actually help the environment.
Conservatives--particularly devoutly Christians ones--empathize with criminals. They see all people as children of God and as sinners. But they believe that just as overindulgent parents raise spoiled children, so it is bad public policy to think that extending empathy to be "soft" on criminals is doing them or society a favor. They believe instead that doing so just creates more criminals.
Right or wrong, a good Christian conservative--which I am not, so I'm extrapolating, here--would say, "You are homosexual, and I empathize with you. It's totally okay to be homosexual. However, God says gay behavior is wrong, and you therefore ought not do it." Hence the expression, "hate the sin, love the sinner." Radio talk-show host Glenn Beck, who is both a religious conservative and a recovering alcoholic, draws this analogy. He says that he gives the benefit of the doubt to homosexuals who argue that sexual orientation is something you are born with, like hair or eye color. But, he says, he believes he was born an alcoholic. That's what he is. And, he says, that doesn't make it okay for him to drink, or absolve him from responsibility for his drinking. It means he has to overcome what he is to do what is right and to be who he should be. And he believes the same is true for homosexuals and homosexual behavior.
Most conservatives would make a similar argument with respect to drug use. Rush Limbaugh says that things he did while addicted to prescription pain medication were wrong.
Finally, as far as money is concerned, conservatives think there are many things that need to get done--and say, "Okay, so go do them. What are you waiting for?" Conservatism believes there is truth to Milton Freidman's statement that "When a man spends his own money to buy something for himself, he is very careful about how much he spends and how he spends it", and that this is not true when spending someone else's money.
Liberals, on the other hand, believe they know better than those people whose money it is how that money should be spent, and believe people can not be trusted to spend their own money on the things the liberal believes are important. And yet the liberals can not afford to do all the things they want to do. So rather than earn the money they need, or budget or save up so they can afford the things they think should be done, they say, "The rich have the money, so... we'll take it by force, and spend it how we see fit, because we know best." Conservatives are generous with their own money, while liberals are generous with someone other people's money.
Notice, by the way, the important distinction here between "conservatives and liberals" and "Democrats and Republicans". Taking money to which they are not entitled and spending it as they wish is a trait shared by both of our major political parties, unfortunately. But as far as the two political philosophies we've been discussing are concerned, it is conservatism that argues against it.''
Posted by David Gaw in Current Affairs & Politics at January 13, 2004 07:29 am. Link:
Cuz We Said So: The Difference Between Conservatives and Liberals
