I’ll try to be fair and balanced here. But true neutrality in politics is, I think, rare to nonexistent. Everyone has a leaning. A citizen using the Independent banner prefers not to admit it or hopes others won’t notice their inclination. For most the political leaning is liberal versus conservative commonly painted as blue or red.
The question I’ll look at is “What’s the basis behind the differences and how do they matter?”
Firstly, sorting out distinctions isn’t always totally clear. I’ll use my politic as example. I’d term myself a classic liberal. These days an old-style classic liberal tends to be seen on the sidelines away from the mainstream from which is sprung and once represented. A Kennedy Democrat represents a different view than does its Obama/Clinton counterpart and similarly a Reagan Republican wasn’t on the same page as an Eisenhower era conservative. The content behind labels changes with the times. This makes getting a grip on the subject anything but sure and easy.
Again to use my own example, again I’d put myself as socially liberal and economically conservative. How do you graph that? I doubt this split is unique and that even the most diehard on either side has exceptions in their political thinking and actions.
It would be handy if we could look at good and evil or constructive/destructive as guides to define political opposites. Sadly this tactic neither helps nor works. If we did a head count we’d come up with high nastiness scores for God-fearing believers and Godless atheists.
Given the opportunity and power to do so any persuasion, belief, or political inclination will engage in lopping off heads. It’s a short hunt to find graphic evidence of sweet beliefs using murderous violence to emphasize the correctness of its views and demonstrate the practical value of saying “Yes Sir, Mam, Being, or Glorious One!” Humans have a collective capacity to be passionate. Add to that an inclination to be absolutist and the result is what I call dangerous. Either side can overstep in order to get its way or preserve its political power.
For convenience I’m going to give each of the two main views (Liberal and Conservative) a single key word to help define it. Both of the words will be generally recognized (in our culture) as having positive meanings. For the Conservative side use the word Freedom as prime and for the Liberal apply Equality as a driving principle. But note this too: Adherents of either Freedom or Equality can elevate it to a level of religious like belief where a Central Committee or Great Leader steps into the Godly position with predictable results for those not seen with favor by the On High.
Now for a quick look at each of the key terms.
Freedom, which I associate here with the Conservative position, is certainly valued outside the conservative circle. For the most part our American society celebrates the idea and value of freedom. We want to be free. That’s fine and good. It’s the way in which freedom is sometimes exercised that becomes the bedeviling social and political problem.
A ready example of freedom abused is in the Civil War where every secessionist state called for the freedom to own other humans as property. Freedom becomes an abuse when used to hold others in a position of inferiority. A citizen being for freedom without an understanding that qualifies and regulates its use is in the position of gripping a red wolf by the ears to keep it from ravaging the throat.
Freedom exercised in its own name for its own benefit often turns as dangerous to those using it as those it is used against.
Equality, which I associate with the Liberal position, is also valued beyond liberal circles. Our foundation document announces All Created Equal. At the time that big step meant the New Nation would not recognize a noble class; a radical idea that was transforming much of Europe, especially France. Being equal by birth also carried with it equality under the law.
I think we can agree that in following the US tradition you won’t get much argument in favor of having a noble class or for a difference in application of law based on birth. But as the virtues of Freedom can be abused so can those of Equality by an insistence on leveling citizens so individual distinction gets lost in adherence to the mass. When the meaning of equality is not qualified and regulated it leaves its supporter in the position of holding a blue wolf by the ears. An overreach of equality tends toward an outcome for the individual bad as that of a slave for the cause of freedom.
I hope this review of Left and Right in politics is useful and won’t be seen as bias. I hope that because I think each citizen has a task more important than the immediate aim of upholding their cause, Right or Left is. In a civil and responsible society there must be more than party politics to follow and guide us as a unified nation. A responsible society dies without a committed and responsible citizenry. How can that be done? Well, if a political position can’t be made without savage slander to its opposition it fails my test of body politic.
Leave a Reply