 |
| Image from patriotupdate.com. |
For several years I have been captivated by the words "liberal" and "conservative." What do they mean? We all use those words, but we often have very different definitions of them. In asking people how they define those two words, I often get examples of behavior or principles, rather than actual, precise definitions.
While vacationing in Tennessee with my wife many years ago, I asked our friends, Billy and Grace, how they defined the word "redneck." At the time we were driving across their beautiful state, so we had a lot of time to kill. My quick definition of a redneck was anyone who had at least one inoperable vehicle sitting in their front yard. Each of the others gave their own definitions, some funny and some serious, but as we discussed each one, we readily thought of exceptions and had counter-definitions. After a surprisingly lengthy conversation, we all agreed that there was no clear-cut definition of a "redneck," but we "knew one when we saw one."
As with defining "redneck," it is easier to recognize a liberal or conservative person than to define the terms. Although we can be fooled by first impressions, most of us can quickly identify whether a person is liberal or conservative in their values, after a short conversation. Why is that?
We Are All Liberal And Conservative
One of the complexities of trying to define "liberal" and "conservative" is that we all show those traits at different times, and that is somewhat amazing to me. I am a socially liberal person, in that I fully support the rights of all minorities, but I wear conservative shirts and ties and I spend my money in a conservative fashion. I use liberal amounts of ketchup and conservative amounts of butter on my food. My tastes in music are liberal by standards of my peers (e.g., I love steel pan music and European jazz), but conservative to younger people (e.g., I don't love rap and heavy metal). Yet in my love for classical music, I am conservative (Beethoven, Bach, Mozart) in my preferences, rather than liberal (Cage, Glass, Schoenberg).
It is also interesting that "liberal" and "conservative" have become increasingly antagonizing words in our society. When used to describe people in politics, they have become downright dirty words. A liberal is understood to be a left-wing Democratic, while a conservative is a right-wing Republican. It hasn't always been that way, however. Lyndon Johnson thanked the Republican Party for its support and votes to pass the 1964 Civil Rights Law, because many Democrats voted against it. Many of them were Southern Democrats, who later switched to the Republican Party. Even into the 1980's one would find Southern Democrats who were more conservative than their Republican counterparts.
What's Money Got To Do With It?
"Liberal" and "conservative" have become more and more associated with the Democratic and Republican Parties, respectively, although I still know socially-liberal Republicans and fiscally-conservative Democrats. In fact, "liberal" and "conservative" in politics has little or nothing to do with how much money is spent, but how the money is spent. If the money is spent on funding wars, the Department of Defense or tax cuts, conservative Republicans are fine with it. If the money is spent on health care, social security, the environment or the country's infrastructure repair, liberal Democrats are fine with that. Neither Party is close to supporting a balanced budget that would reduce what gets spent on their favored programs.
Of the people I know well, probably 90-95% are Democrats. They run the gamut from being conservative Democrats (think of people like Warren Buffett) to very liberal Democrats (think of people like Eugene McCarthy). Most of the Republicans I know are socially liberal, supporting the right to choose, Gay rights and equal justice for all. They say that they are fiscally conservative, but that's where the term "conservative" gets fuzzy. The Republicans I know consistently take more risk in their financial lives than any of the Democrats I know. Warren Buffett is a fiscal conservative in that he intentionally minimizes the risk he takes in choosing his investments. He touts indexed funds for the average investor, and he thoroughly understands an industry before he invests in it. I can't believe the level of risk many of my Republican friends are willing to take; it is much more risk than I take in my investments.
Similarly, I can't understand what is "conservative" about how Republicans govern at the national level, if we're talking about fiscal responsibility. Every President (whether Republican or Democrat) increases the national debt--some by increasing social programs, some by waging wars or lowering taxes, and some by doing both. In the last 40 years, only two Presidents have had a surplus in their federal budgets--Democrats Carter and Clinton--and they each did it three times! Republicans Reagan, George HW Bush and George W Bush had budget deficits in all 20 years in which they were President. And yet people thought of them as fiscally conservative. They were only fiscally "conservative" when they ignored the costs of wars and tax cuts. If Obama ignored the costs of Medicare and Social Security, perhaps he would be labeled a fiscal "conservative" also.
Inclusive vs. Exclusive
When someone tells me that he/she is conservative or liberal, I have to look beyond the subject of how they manage their money. A much more accurate observation is whether they are "inclusive" or "exclusive," beginning with their fiscal policies. Liberals I know ascribe to fiscal policies that equitably benefit a broad base of people, regardless of economic levels or groups, while conservatives I know align with policies that benefit their own economic level or group of the population primarily--or the level or group to which they aspire. A liberal is much more likely to vote "yes" on an education tax bond than a conservative is, if neither person has a child who is of school age.
When asked how he would fund social causes, such as health care and food for the poor, Mitt Romney said that he'd do it through private donations. Our corporations are funded by private investments, so why couldn't social problems be handled and solved in the same way? Therein lies a major difference between conservatives and liberals. Donations and investments are, by nature, exclusive, and there are two fundamental reasons why they will always fail to fund large national programs. First, donations are not distributed evenly and, thus, large numbers of people are likely to be left out. Second, donations are not consistent over time. One good fundraising year doesn't mean the next year will be good. For those two reasons, liberals choose to not rely on private donations and private industry to solve national problems--especially social problems like health, disability, unemployment and welfare of seniors.
As my opinions about "conservative" and "liberal" evolved over the years, I spent a lot of time trying to observe whether people are, by nature, inclusive or exclusive in how they interact with others. The word "exclusive," interestingly, has positive and negative connotations. You might be attracted to an exclusive restaurant or club, but that attraction would quickly diminish if you learned they exclude blacks or gays or some other minority. A vegan excludes animal products in their diets, which may or may not be healthy. And if you throw a party, you probably won't include everybody you know, because of space constraints, so you must be "exclusive" in whom you invite.
In observing people who profess to be liberal or conservative, I have found that liberals are much more inclusive in how they address people and talk about people. In meeting someone for the first time, a liberal person will invariably ask questions about me and my family first, and then they will share things about themselves. A conservative will initially say things about his or her own life and, almost reluctantly, ask questions about me and my life. I have spent many conversations at parties or events where, after ten minutes and a polite parting, the conservative person knew absolutely nothing about my life and I knew dozens of things about their life.
I believe that liberals (or at least social liberals) show interest in others because they are naturally inclusive of others. They have empathy for another person's plight, not through pity but by imagining themselves in the other person's place. All people are concerned about their own family, own health, own financial situation, own security and own opportunities, but liberals are also fundamentally (and almost equally) concerned about the health, security and opportunities of others. This is true in people's attitudes toward illegal immigrants, for instance. Conservatives want to exclude illegal immigrants from our country and send them back to whatever their plight was. Liberals want to find a way to include illegal immigrants in our society. Conservatives think of the issue in terms of "us" versus "them." Liberals think of the issue in terms of "all of us."
So, a person's views on inclusion vs. exclusion play a big part in determining whether they are liberal or conservative. But there's an even bigger criterion.
The Question of Change
There is a second, even more fundamental comparison that can be made between liberal and conservative values. As I ask people to define the difference between the two, it is the comparison I hear the most often now, perhaps because the two political parties have separated more and more in the last several years. Being "liberal" is associated with people who look forward to and embrace change, while being "conservative" is associated with people who either want no change, very slow change, or want to go back to how things used to be. Liberals want to expedite change, while conservatives want to slow it down.
Now, we are all nostalgic for times past. I miss the decade in which I grew up (the 1950's), and I especially miss the music of the 1960's. But there are hundreds of things in our daily lives that I wouldn't want to give up in order to return to the 1950's. Many of those things were developed or invented or advocated because people embraced the concept of daring change--from the advent of all things "computer" to laws guaranteeing the equal rights of people, from the development of ground-breaking medical advancements to the spread of democracy and free markets throughout the world.
When I think of how quickly a country changes, I am always amused at how slow this country was in giving women the right to vote. The 19th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified in 1920, a full 50 years after the 15th Amendment was ratified giving black males the right to vote! The 14th Amendment had originally mentioned the rights of citizens to vote, but the word "male" was inserted before it was finalized. This set women's suffrage back 50 years!
In the case of LGBT rights, one might think that the country has changed very quickly, given recent court judgments, but that certainly is not the case. The country changes "quickly" once the scales of public opinion on any given subject tip in the opposite direction, but that "tipping" process can take many decades.
Perhaps most indicative today of the difference in how liberals and conservatives view change is the interrelated subject of global warming and the development of alternative (renewable) energy solutions. Liberals generally are for the accelerated development of renewable energy solutions, in order to offset the creep of global warming. Conservatives feel, despite an overwhelming amount of data to the contrary, that global warming either doesn't exist or isn't serious enough to reduce the use of fossil fuels. If you understand that, since 1880, 13 of the 15 hottest years on record (globally) have occurred since 2000 (!), it's difficult to understand how anyone could discount the presence and growing effects of global warming.
So, why don't we change faster as a country to combat the effects of that global warming? The answer isn't purely economic, because there are huge profits to be made in alternative energy industries--profits that U.S. companies could be making. China funds and produces much more alternative energy than the U.S. does. Their pollution problems are much greater, and they are using that as an opportunity to be first in the world in alternative energy exports. Why isn't the United States taking that lead?
The answer is that, in order to take the lead in something, you have to embrace and value significant change. Conservatives certainly embrace change in developing new weapons and national defense; we have the best in the world. But conservatives do not embrace significant change in other areas, and thus the United States does not lead as universally as it used to. The countries which embrace and promote "forward" change are the ones that will lead in the future.
Last Thoughts On Liberal vs. Conservative
For me to think of a person as truly "liberal," that person must be both inclusive of others and open to significant, progressive change. It's that magical combination of the two that defines a person with liberal values, as far as I can see. I know of one couple who are generally considered "left-wing liberals" by most, but they are neither inclusive of others nor open to change from their current prejudices. I consider them "radicals," just as I consider far-right religious zealots as radicals. You can take liberal values and conservative values too far to the extremes, and I dislike both.
My final thought about the words "liberal" and "conservative" is that they are often used as limiting, derogatory labels, and that further polarizes the two positions. I've learned to accept my conservative friends, even though I disagree with many of their opinions. We do not become more polarized when we respect each other's right to have those views.
