The Patriot

Issue date: 2/25/08 Section: Voices & Times

Sweeney [Click to enlarge]

In recent years, American politics seem to have boiled down to two words: conservative and liberal.

If you are even vaguely aware of the political scene, you have heard these terms being yelled across TV's roundtable discussions and over the airwaves of talk radio.

But do we know what these terms really mean?

Let's take a look at the definitions of the two political philosophies and find out what all the hoopla is about.

Liberalism: Both group, individual philosophy

Liberalism is "A political or social philosophy advocating the freedom of the individual, parliamentary systems of government, nonviolent modification of political, social, or economic institutions to assure unrestricted development in all spheres of human endeavor, and governmental guarantees of individual rights and civil liberties," according to Dictionary.com.

A powerful word appears twice in that definition: individual.

It defines liberalism as aimed at "advocating the freedom of the individual" and working to ensure "governmental guarantees of individual rights and civil liberties."

But aren't Democrats and liberals always advocating socialistic policies with more of a betterment-for-the-group attitude?

Historically, the Democratic Party has advocated rules that play down the value of the individual for more of a group philosophy.

Just take Lyndon B. Johnson's Great Society or Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal. The two presidents created programs that worked toward improving the strength of the society as a whole. In more recent times, issues are looked at by the Democratic Party as group problems rather than dilemmas of the individual.

But why would liberalism include the word "individual" in its definition?

Perhaps it's because a truly successful society depends on the actions of each one of its individuals.

There's no way for a group to succeed by solely relying on the advancement of the group by the group.

Individuals must advance society through their combined efforts, but still on their own merit, to foster growth.

In health care, education, business and everything else, while there are regulations and services for the group, they still must be executed and enforced by individuals.

Conservatism: Respect for traditional institutions

Conservatism is defined by Dictionary.com as "A political philosophy or attitude emphasizing respect for traditional institutions, distrust of government activism, and opposition to sudden change in the established order."

That definition sounds straightforward enough. Respect the institution as you found it, avoid overbearing government action and stay clear of sudden - and perhaps unneeded or poorly planed - changes in the system.

But if conservatives and Republicans are so against government expansion, why have we seen one of the largest expansions of government since the New Deal during the last few years?

Why have lawmakers who claim to be conservatives encouraged the growth of government activism rather than distrusting it as the definition suggests?

While conservatives often are advocating less government involvement, in order to survive in an ever-changing world, one must change and adapt with it. What this definition advocates is an attitude emphasizing respect for traditional institutions, not making sure to hinder their effectiveness. This definition cannot survive without the willingness to accept change and adapt in order to avoid being left behind.

What conservatism might argue is that, in the face of change, we must recognize and exercise prudence in matters directly correlated with effectiveness and, perhaps, morality.

Change always will occur, but the foundation of morality will, ideally, never undergo drastic change.

The basic foundations laid forth by our Constitution call for men to be allowed to exist with life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - their equal right. So, the ultimate call for traditional institutions might be to remain effective in fostering those rights.

Finding the appropriate level of adaptation ensures the survival of all philosophies and forms of government.

Liberals, conservatives need one another

In the end, it isn't a question of pure conservatism versus pure liberalism. The question is what good can be discovered in each philosophy.

Most people would agree that the pure execution of either school of thought, with no regard to change or tradition, would lead to an unsuccessful result.

History is dotted with the failure of groups who went too far out of their way to preserve a form of government absent from their rivals' ways of thinking.

All of these have failed, and their lessons must be learned.

No matter what your personal ideals are or which school of thought you think makes more sense, there always is an overlap in thinking and a mutual understanding that must be implemented in order for either to be successful.

A liberal who refuses the individual never will realize group success. A conservative who refuses to adapt will be left behind everyone else.

In the end, it comes down to what we can do to adapt ourselves - each of us, individually - while ensuring the rights of all in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Page 1 of 1

Article Tools