Rethinking the terms 'Liberal' and 'Conservative'

[Today we welcome guest blogger SWR.  We thank him for his great contribution and hope he continues to contribute to PfP.  As always, if you would like to submit an opinion to post on PfP, just email peopleforpolity@gmail.com.  Everyone is encouraged to submit regardless of political beliefs.  Let's get the conversation started!]

Much too often people in the United States use the terms ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ (dare I say) rather liberally as well as uncritically and without specifics. There seems to be a general (incorrect) assumption in this country that the term ‘liberal’ somehow is equivalent to left-wing, while the term ‘conservative’ is supposed to be the equivalent of right-wing. Also, the use of these two terms in a dialectical sense is quite problematic, because they actually refer to different types of things.

Liberalism refers to one or a collection of philosophies based upon the maintenance and expansion of individual liberty (freedom) in a number of dimensions; including political, social, and economic. Liberalism should thus be compared with other social, political, and economic philosophical traditions.

‘Conservative’ is a different type of term. Conservatism, as a label, is more appropriate when referring to a general outlook or approach to society. Conservatism thus signifies a desire to maintain the societal status quo (aka what one is ‘conserving’), whatever that may be in a given society. Conservatism thus sits at the center of a spectrum that has progressivism as the left-wing, and reactionism or ‘regressivism’ as the right-wing. Thus what is considered conservative and what is considered progressive is dependent upon a given society’s starting position. It therefore doesn’t represent an actual ideology. While conservatives can be slightly left or right leaning, overall they represent centrist or status quo positions. Conservatism can thus almost be used interchangeably with 'traditionalism.'

Having explained this distinction, it is vital to understand that the way that many people seem to use these terms is incorrect, to say the least, and can in fact be quite dangerous depending on how they are (mis)represented.

For example, the ideas of liberalism formed much of the basis for the United States Constitution, as well as being the beliefs espoused by many of the founding fathers (ex: Jefferson, Madison, to name a few). In that sense we should understand that in many ways, liberalism forms the basis of much of American conservatism (think market economy, civil liberties, etc).

While some might concede that this applies to liberalism in some sense, they would also argue that what is called ‘liberalism’ in the contemporary American sense, also known as ‘social liberalism’, is not ‘classical liberalism’ and therefore is not the principles upon which this country was founded.

However, the flaw in that line of thinking is the notion that an ideology must remain static in order to remain legitimate. Social liberalism, in recognizing the need for the government to protect citizens from the volatile nature of the market, simply represents the adaptation of those original principles of ensuring and promoting freedom to the contemporary context.

What we as a society must come to see and understand is that in our contemporary American society, the labels used to describe each of our two major parties distorts not only what each of the parties stand for, but it also greatly distorts American history and our understanding of the American tradition.

Democrats in their historical creation of and contemporary support for programs like Social Security and Medicare (which are both popular in this country and are supported by the majority of the American population) tend to represent what could most appropriately be called genuine American conservatism.

Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman

Paul Krugman makes this same point in his book The Conscience of a Liberal when he states that “One of the seeming paradoxes of America in the early twenty-first century is that those of us who call ourselves liberal are, in an important sense, conservative, while those who call themselves conservative are for the most part deeply radical.”

It is this absurd distortion that supports the deluded notion that what most Republicans believe in is actually consistent with the American tradition. In basically attempting to eliminate the legacy of the twentieth century, what Republicans stand for is profoundly reactionary and profoundly regressive in its goals. Also, their rejection of the principles of democracy, as well as their absurd rewrite of American history as a ‘Christian nation,’ and the rejection of science-based thinking is simply an outright rejection of the legacy of the Enlightenment.

None of that is consistent with the ideals of the American tradition and should in no way be described as ‘conservative.’ However, Republicans (and right-wingers in general) are able to portray themselves as moderates due to the ignorance of much of the American population about our history, as well as through the manipulative use of the rhetoric of 'faux-traditionalism' and of 'faux-libertarianism.'

In our contemporary society, the Democratic party tends to represent the ideas of American conservatism (in its actual form) with some members taking a slightly more progressive bend, while Republicans represent a profoundly reactionary and regressive worldview that seeks to overturn the achievements of the Enlightenment.

All Americans (but especially progressives, liberals, and Democrats) need to not dance around these terms and allow Republicans to falsely claim the legitimacy of ‘tradition.’ We need to assert the principles of the actual American tradition and also call Republicans what they actually are: reactionary aristocratic elitist Christo-fascist authoritarians.

When we use those terms, we should not give the impression that we are "name-calling", nor should we ever let right-wingers claim that we are just name-calling. What each person must emphasize is that these terms are merely accurate descriptions of their actual beliefs and tactics.

They actually are aristocratic. They actually are opposed to the democratic process. They do actually believe in making their own distorted version of 'Christianity' the official religion of this country. And they do actually believe in defending the interests of the wealthy AT ALL COSTS.

Those are not traditional American values, and these people are not conservatives!