August 2007: Does the liberal—conservative debate matter any more?
The words conservative and liberal have meant different things at different times in history.
Today the political debate is informed by a hodgepodge of events — from the'68 Democratic convention to the Reagan Revolution to Vietnam — and a laundry list of hot-button issues — abortion, gun control, war, taxes, gay rights, and poverty. Perhaps never before have political parties — those alliances of special interests — and ideologies lined up so well. If you are a Democrat, you are probably left-of-center; you would be expected to be pro-choice, pro-environment, and anti-death penalty. If you are Republican, you are probably conservative. As such you would be expected to line up with your party and ideology on the hot-button issues. You would be pro-gun, anti-abortion, and pro-business.
Maybe in 100 years or so it will be easy to look back and boil down the political ideologies of 21st century America. Until then, we offer OUR definitions of the terms, treating each side with respect and objectivity. We reach out to those who refuse to be pigeon-holed into an ideology and targeted by the operatives and their propaganda dollars.
|
Conservative Response
When President Clinton tried to deny being a liberal, he said that labels like liberal and conservative no longer matter, in his words "that dog won't hunt." We think it still does.
|
|
The division between liberal and conservative still creates THE essential debate in US politics.
Our point of departure is this: the liberal-conservative debate is about the role of government. Conservatives rely on government, to be sure: to protect us, and to enforce laws and contracts. But the key to living free is prosperity. In the words of John McLaughlin, prosperity requires a stable and moral society. Public policy, then, should reflect a free market economy and a small government that feeds market forces. Conservatives say that prosperity is a result of a free people innovating and responding to the needs and desires of fellow citizens. But it must be informed by a moral backbone. Otherwise, anarchy and decadence will threaten our economy and our civil rights.
|
Our point of departure is this: the liberal-conservative debate is about the role of government. Conservatives rely on government, to be sure: to protect us, and to enforce laws and contracts. But the key to living free is prosperity. In the words of John McLaughlin, prosperity requires a stable and moral society. Public policy, then, should reflect a free market economy and a small government that feeds market forces. Conservatives say that prosperity is a result of a free people innovating and responding to the needs and desires of fellow citizens. But it must be informed by a moral backbone. Otherwise, anarchy and decadence will threaten our economy and our civil rights.
So from week to week we will talk about freedom. We will tie it, we will weld it, we will fuse it to the economy and people's right to make a living without government interference.
— Editor
|
Liberal Response
The common goal for all of us is a free and prosperous land. The liberal tool for the achievement of that goal is government. Government to level the playing field; government to ensure the protection of individual rights; government to counter the biases of big money on the lives of the everyday people.
How may times in history have we seen the entrenched moneyed class abuse people in order to protect their rice bowls? Look at our own nation and the control the moneyed class has over our lives: when we get up in the morning, where we live, how we dress, etc. Employers, lawyers, advertisers, big companies: all of these have more to say about how we live than does the government on a day to day basis.
So who controls the human impulse to think that one's wealth is a sign of superiority? An open, transparent, well-regulated government, that's who.
Humankind has already had its experiments with unregulated capitalism, and these have all been disasters for the common people. And often, as it turns out, for the rich themselves.
Conservatives see a vital role in government: protect property and thereby promote prosperity. Liberals see a bigger role: protect people and actively promote prosperity.
— Editor
|
Alternative Response
To say that the key argument about government and its role is the conservative-liberal debate might be true, but that ignores the limitations of only two schools of thought. This debate assumes that approaches to governing are limited to more activism versus less activism, and that everything fits in there somewhere.
But how about if the real debate is green versus non-green --- that the resolution of THAT issue affects our survival and that whether you are a liberal or conservative then doesn't matter much?
Or what if the REAL issue is whether we should have a commercial economy? Today both liberals and conservatives are fully vested in a commercial global economy. Today liberals and conservatives are like two wings of the same bird. The range of options is too narrow.
Libertarians claim that individual liberty depends on radical reductions in government powers, well beyond that envisioned by conservatives in the economic realm, and well beyond what liberals will tolerate regarding personal freedoms.
What if the issue is the very existence of national governments? That is way beyond conservative versus liberal.
And shouldn't these ideas get a hearing?
— Editor
|
