Conservatism Is Not What We Need.
posted by Josiah Garber on April 15, 2010
in Politics
If you are going to listen to Washington politicians at all, it is always best to listen to the party that is currently out of power. After each election, it is the job of the losers to try to attack the winners in any way they can. Often, they inadvertently advocate genuine principles of liberty in the process.
During the 8-year nightmare that was the Bush administration, it was the Democrats that stumbled upon these principles in their efforts to regain the throne. It was they who pointed out that the government should not be spying on its own citizens, that the president was assuming un-delegated powers through executive order, and that it was neither morally justified nor prudent to invade a third world nation that had committed no acts of aggression against the United States and lacked any reasonable means to do so. Their hysterical mouthpiece, Keith Olbermann, even went so far as to cite a long-forgotten document, the U.S. Constitution.
Of course, it is now abundantly clear that these arguments were made simply out of expediency. With the Democrats in power, it is now the Republicans’ turn to “fight City Hall,” and they have rolled out their usual rhetoric about small government, free markets, and traditional family values. Moreover, they, too, have rolled out the U.S. Constitution and waived it around in opposition to the Democrats’ plans to “spread the wealth around.”
Let’s take note that the Republicans are now correct in opposing the main tenets of the Democratic agenda, including expansion of government involvement in health care, “Cap and Trade,” and other wealth redistribution schemes. Amidst all of the usual noise coming from Washington and its media pundit class, it is only the Republicans that are making any sense at all.
An Hypocrisy of Terms: Liberal and Conservative
posted by Josiah Garber on February 16, 2010
in Politics
by Jake Towne of towneforcongress.com
Back in early 2008, I began writing a column “Yet Another Champion of the Constitution” and my second piece addressed two terms that I sometimes read in newspapers but due to my political apathy up through 2007, I did not really fully understand – the “liberals” of the Left, and the “conservatives” of the Right. With a few minor edits from the original post, please take a read:
As basically a beginner in politics, one of the many things that are confusing to me is the very definition of liberal and conservative. Why, what can stump the walnut-sized brain of your author? Am I just being silly? Well, first some of the definitions from Google search that I most commonly associated with these terms -
Liberal
1) Tolerant of change; not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or tradition
2) Liberalism refers to a broad array of related doctrines, ideologies, philosophical views, and political traditions which hold that individual liberty is the primary political value
3) People who generally like to reform current conditions. Liberals are often referred to as the left wing.
Conservative
1) Resistant to change
2) Conservatism is a relativistic term used to describe political philosophies that favor traditional values, where “tradition” refers to religious, cultural, or nationally defined beliefs and customs. The term derives from the Latin, conservare, to conserve together; “to keep, guard, observe”.
3) People who generally like to uphold current conditions and oppose changes. Conservatives are often referred to as the right wing.
Soooooo…. if I live under a liberal government/society where liberty is the primary value, but I don’t want to change it, am I then a conservative? Why do the terms mix definitions of change/reform attitude with political values? Shouldn’t for one particular value, no matter what it is, have a choice between maintaining that value, changing the value in one direction, or changing it in yet another? Why do we have to insinuate that political Conservatives are stubborn-minded and resistant to change? Why do we have to insinuate that political Liberals are fickle-minded? Maybe these are just terms meant to confuse, divide and conquer.