Conservatism is just as broad of a belief structure as liberalism, a good place to start however would be the philosophy of Edmund Burke, considered to be the father of the modern version. Whereas liberalism is concerned with individuals and loosely with the equality of humankind, Burkian conservatism is primarily interested in inequality and the organic nature of society in its many groups. The basis of this form is the division of property, the 'men of best quality' inevitably accrue the largest share of property and workers tend to squander any material gains they happen to gain. Strong leaders are neccessary to maintain order in society but the 'little platoons', as he called these groups, strive for their place within the organism. Hence, reform occurs in an orderly way but utopian visions of trancending inequality are rejected by Burkian conservatives.
In other forms, conservatism is concerned with maintaining the status quo but this also grows out of a belief that wholesale changes are inherently disruptive to order in society. Hence, the term "radical conservative" sometimes used in American media is a contradiction and the radicalism of the American right is mislabeled. True conservatives in the United States therefore, resist changes in both social policy and economics. Historically, working class Americans have often been conservatives, unwilling to take a chance at a better deal for themselves in their jobs for fear of losing what they have. In the same vein, efforts to advance equal rights for African-Americans, Hispanics, GLBT Americans and so on are resisted because more freedom or money for these other groups are percieved as being taken from working class whites. The 1960's saw a "backlash" against efforts to make American society more equal and concurrently gave politicians a platform of "law and order" to harness these attitudes.
It should be mentioned then that New Deal Democrats are essentially conservative in contemporary America because they defend the status quo of programs such as social security, labor laws and business regulation which have been institutionalized in the U.S. Republican conservatives seeking to roll these back claim to be restoring the traditional status quo of laissez faire that existed prior to the Great Depression. However, during that era our society was far less orderly or just, there was mass labor violence, snake-oil salesmen style fraud and frequent economic depressions or "panics". New Deal Liberals therefore created a society of little platoon interest groups and the capacity for orderly, gradual reform that Edmund Burke would have approved of.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Ideology 101: liberalism
Entire books have been written to define ideology, college courses from freshmen surveys all the way through the graduate level study the idea. What is it? To put this broad and complex idea into a seven second soundbite, ideology is a belief structure to organize one's thoughts and apply to events and label people's personal philosophy.
Liberal is a word that gets thrown about alot in the media and politics but it is rarely used properly. Merriam-Webster has 6 definitions and 3 sub-definitions for the word dealing with generosity, open-mindedness and freedom, as well as a working definition for liberalism: "ideals of [the] individual especially economic freedom, greater individual participation in government, and constitutional, political, and administrative reforms designed to secure these objectives." Sounds pretty good eh? So how did this word become the epitath of choice for Republicans to use against Democrats when they themselves stand for many of the same ideas?
It has a lot to do with the title of this blog. In the 1930s, as we all learned in elementary school, the United States was stuck in the Great Depression and Franklin Roosevelt steered many reforms to make government more concerned with regular people's welfare. Hence the term "welfare liberalism" was born, usually written as "Liberalism" and is concerned with "positive freedom". Classical liberals then became known as Libertarians and maintained the Jeffersonian idea of "negative freedom" and limited government. The difference between positive and negative freedoms is the former seeks to empower people with freedom to do something while the latter is concerned primarily with keeping people free from restrictions such as government interference.
So when Republicans decry "big government" they are acting as Libertarians but many other groups exist within that party as well. Democrats are often Liberal in the sense that they do want government to do more than just maintain a military and police, to various degrees they believe government is responsible for the welfare of people. Under these conditions then, both major parties in America are liberal. Hard to believe? Yeah, me too.
Liberal is a word that gets thrown about alot in the media and politics but it is rarely used properly. Merriam-Webster has 6 definitions and 3 sub-definitions for the word dealing with generosity, open-mindedness and freedom, as well as a working definition for liberalism: "ideals of [the] individual especially economic freedom, greater individual participation in government, and constitutional, political, and administrative reforms designed to secure these objectives." Sounds pretty good eh? So how did this word become the epitath of choice for Republicans to use against Democrats when they themselves stand for many of the same ideas?
It has a lot to do with the title of this blog. In the 1930s, as we all learned in elementary school, the United States was stuck in the Great Depression and Franklin Roosevelt steered many reforms to make government more concerned with regular people's welfare. Hence the term "welfare liberalism" was born, usually written as "Liberalism" and is concerned with "positive freedom". Classical liberals then became known as Libertarians and maintained the Jeffersonian idea of "negative freedom" and limited government. The difference between positive and negative freedoms is the former seeks to empower people with freedom to do something while the latter is concerned primarily with keeping people free from restrictions such as government interference.
So when Republicans decry "big government" they are acting as Libertarians but many other groups exist within that party as well. Democrats are often Liberal in the sense that they do want government to do more than just maintain a military and police, to various degrees they believe government is responsible for the welfare of people. Under these conditions then, both major parties in America are liberal. Hard to believe? Yeah, me too.
Statement of Purpose
Politics are really hard to understand.
I wish schools taught more of the basics of how government actually worked.
Life shouldn't have to be this difficult.
Political advertisements are too condescending but political blogs go over my head.
I spent years learning a skill, getting a job, starting a family and building a life, now I want to get involved but don't know where to start.
If you nodded your head about any of these statements, this is a blog for you. Participating in American democracy shouldn't be like emigrating to a new country where you are immersed in a foreign language and culture. Too many politicos assume they are talking to an audience that is as obsessed as they are, or deliberately want to exclude as many people from their little club as they can. It doesn't have to be this way.
To begin, nothing is truly objective, we all have biases but if we admit them and try not to deceive others of our point of view there can be a genuine discussion instead of a yelling match. I will come right out and say that I am a Liberal and a Democrat, this blog is more for open-minded people who think for themselves than for committed partisans. I know a lot more about the radical right than the radical left, if anyone knows people on the left who really act like conservative TV and radio hosts I'd like to meet them. That said, I will try to leave heavy opinion to my other blog and try to be even-handed when dealing with political topics. Since ideology is manmade, it is always a matter of opinion, you cannot scientifically study then.
This blog is primarily about intellectual honesty, I may disagree with conservatives and find many of their tactics repugnant but I do not want to demonize them. Nor is it productive to assume the other side is automatically good and deserving of praise. The opposite is also true for conservatives and Republicans. You don't try to pop wheelies and take jumps when the training wheels are still on, but even after they come off, ad hominem demogaugery is stressful and usually poisonous. My goal is just to have people who don't understand what the fuss is all about come to realize why calling Barack Obama a fascist and a socialist is laughable and unproductive, but also calling George W. Bush names isn't either.
The ugly truth is that American politics has always been this juvenile, the name-calling started during George Washington's administration and rarely subsides enough to have an honest debate. I don't know why this is so, it is almost tradition to have a bully and a victim in electoral contests (and yes, the Democratic Party was the bully for quite a long time), please join me on this journey and maybe we can figure it out.
Tallyho!
I wish schools taught more of the basics of how government actually worked.
Life shouldn't have to be this difficult.
Political advertisements are too condescending but political blogs go over my head.
I spent years learning a skill, getting a job, starting a family and building a life, now I want to get involved but don't know where to start.
If you nodded your head about any of these statements, this is a blog for you. Participating in American democracy shouldn't be like emigrating to a new country where you are immersed in a foreign language and culture. Too many politicos assume they are talking to an audience that is as obsessed as they are, or deliberately want to exclude as many people from their little club as they can. It doesn't have to be this way.
To begin, nothing is truly objective, we all have biases but if we admit them and try not to deceive others of our point of view there can be a genuine discussion instead of a yelling match. I will come right out and say that I am a Liberal and a Democrat, this blog is more for open-minded people who think for themselves than for committed partisans. I know a lot more about the radical right than the radical left, if anyone knows people on the left who really act like conservative TV and radio hosts I'd like to meet them. That said, I will try to leave heavy opinion to my other blog and try to be even-handed when dealing with political topics. Since ideology is manmade, it is always a matter of opinion, you cannot scientifically study then.
This blog is primarily about intellectual honesty, I may disagree with conservatives and find many of their tactics repugnant but I do not want to demonize them. Nor is it productive to assume the other side is automatically good and deserving of praise. The opposite is also true for conservatives and Republicans. You don't try to pop wheelies and take jumps when the training wheels are still on, but even after they come off, ad hominem demogaugery is stressful and usually poisonous. My goal is just to have people who don't understand what the fuss is all about come to realize why calling Barack Obama a fascist and a socialist is laughable and unproductive, but also calling George W. Bush names isn't either.
The ugly truth is that American politics has always been this juvenile, the name-calling started during George Washington's administration and rarely subsides enough to have an honest debate. I don't know why this is so, it is almost tradition to have a bully and a victim in electoral contests (and yes, the Democratic Party was the bully for quite a long time), please join me on this journey and maybe we can figure it out.
Tallyho!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
