As I watch the coverage of the Democratic National Convention I continue to hear phrases such as “Most Liberal Senator in the Congress” (referring to Obama) and my favorite given by Rudy Guiliani “Joe Biden is the third most liberal Senator in the Congress.” I guess I never realized there was a ranking system for such things… who then is second? And how is Hillary and Pelosi or even Kennedy not among the top 3?
As I started thinking about “most liberal” vs. “moderate liberal” vs. “conservative” I wondered: “What is it that separates liberal from conservative?” What are the issues that truly make one liberal or conservative – especially if you take abortion and homosexuality off the agenda?
Are those two issues (abortion/homosexuality) truly the issues that divide liberal from conservative? I highly doubt it and am sure that there is more to it than that… but these are the only two that we ever hear about–the rest is simply rhetoric.
So, who can help me out… who can answer my question, cause I’d really like to know what truly divides us.
Related posts:
- emergent, the new christian left.
- disowning conservative politics…
- the fashionable left.
- the west wing.
- the outside looking in.
I learned in a biblical theology class that the terms “liberal” and “conservative” refer to one’s interpretation of the bible. Those terms are the same when it comes to politics only they refer to one’s interpretation of the constitution.
This is why those terms today have so little actual meaning. A conservative would be someone who holds very tightly to the actual words of the constitution and a liberal would be someone who affords powers to the government not given in the constitution.
This being said, our current culture doesn’t allow us to be super-conservative (though Ron Paul’s entire campaign was about returning to a constitutional government).
In all actuality, nearly all government officials are liberal.
For example, it is “liberal” to suggest that the government can legislate whether or not homosexuals can be married. It is “liberal” to take up taxes to provide food for the poor. It is “liberal” for the government to regulate pretty much anything. It is “conservative” for the government to keep there hands out of as much as possible.
This being said, i think that many of today’s usage of the terms “liberal” and “conservative” are only used for name calling.
Sadly enough. I’ve had so so so many conversations where the words conservative and liberal end the discussion. I’ve really enjoyed bringing up the idea that, in actuality, all politicians today are “liberal” and continuing on from there.
People don’t know how to continue on once there “bubble” has been shattered.
[...] August 26, 2008 by Adam Lehman Aaron Montz wrote a blog post about something that has bothered me for a while. He asks the question: What is the difference between a “liberal” and a “conservative?” [...]
OH. and I wrote a post about this a while back and got some decent responses.
http://ramblingsofpassion.wordpress.com/2008/06/29/what-do-the-terms-liberal-and-conservative-mean/
I don’t even think that homosexuality and abortion are the big defining issues anymore. There are plenty of moderates on both sides that cross over on those issues. To me the big difference involves the size and expectations of government. In general, liberals look to the government to take care of them socially and economically. The government is expected to provide jobs, education, health care, and social programs aimed at leveling the American landscape. Conservatives generally assume that it is not the government’s job to provide any of those things, and when the government does it usually screws them up. Name one thing that the government does more effectively and efficiently than private enterprise. Conservatives generally look to their government to get out of their way on domestic issues and protect their interests in international issues. Liberals deal with international issues in much the same way as they deal with domestic ones – the government should work to take care of the needs of every other nation around the world in addition to our own. Are these cartoon figures? Yes. Do all Repubs and Democrats fall in line with these types? No. Is one right and the other wrong? I’m not sure that you can assign a moral value judgment on the size of government as long as both sides assume the common dignity of mankind. I think it is more a question of effectiveness and efficiency.
Thanks Adam for the insight… very helpful stuff!
I’m not sure I agree with you 100% Rags about abortion and homosexuality… I know that it’s momentum is waning some but I’ve had many conversations with people about the abortion issue this election cycle wondering why and how I could support a pro-choice candidate. They won’t even look at Obama because of that. In the religious world I think it still is the defining issue, I think the religious world has simply done a good job of degrading themselves and their voice to continue the slide.
The other reason why I’m not so sure I agree is that if the difference is simply about the size of governement then why is there such animosity between the two? That seems like a lame reason for such venom.
Adam,
That’s really helpful: liberal and conservative refer to one’s interpretation of the constitution.
I can see lots of animosity over that issue alone.
this is a fun question, aaron.
i definitely think adam’s insight on what constitutionally conservative and liberal mean is right on. And actually, I’d prefer if our current definitions reverted to this concept. Especially so people (including myself) could understand how hypocritical they are in terms of their desired role of governance.
I’m a big fan of the standard left-right spectrum evolving into the 4-quadrant spectrum, with the two axis’ being fiscally conservative/liberal, and socially conservative/liberally.
I find that people not only find more common ground in this situation, but it more accurately displays their leanings. Whereas, someone like Ron Paul, who is, what Adam explained as a rigid constitutional conservative, actually ends up as a moderate on the standard left-right axis.
So, back to your REAL question. What is it that divides us? Humility.
Best definition I found:
10) Conservatives believe that individual Americans have a right to defend themselves and their families with guns and that right cannot be taken away by any method short of a Constitutional Amendment, which conservatives would oppose. Liberals believe by taking arms away from law abiding citizens, they can prevent criminals, who aren’t going to abide by gun control laws, from using guns in the commission of crimes.
9) Conservatives believe that we should live in a color blind society where every individual is judged on the content of his character and the merits of his actions. On the other hand, liberals believe that it’s ok to discriminate based on race as long as it primarily benefits minority groups.
7) Conservatives believe that abortion ends the life of an innocent child and since we believe that infanticide is wrong, we oppose abortion. Most liberals, despite what they’ll tell you, believe that abortion ends the life of an innocent child, but they prefer killing the baby to inconveniencing the mother.
6) Conservatives believe in confronting and defeating enemies of the United States before they can harm American citizens. Liberals believe in using law enforcement measures to deal with terrorism, which means that they feel we should allow terrorists to train, plan, and actually attempt to kill Americans before we try to arrest them — as if you can just send the police around to pick up a terrorist mastermind hiding in Iran or the wilds of Pakistan.
5) Conservatives, but not necessarily Republicans (which is unfortunate), believe it’s vitally important to the future of the country to reduce the size of government, keep taxes low, balance the budget, and get this country out of debt. Liberals, and Democrats for that matter, believe in big government, high taxes, and they have never met a new spending program they didn’t like, whether we will have to go into debt to pay for it or not.
4) Conservatives believe that government, by its very nature, tends to be inefficient, incompetent, wasteful, and power hungry. That’s why we believe that the government that governs least, governs best. Liberals think that the solution to every problem is another government program. Even when those new programs create new problems, often worse than the ones that were being fixed in the first place, the solution is always….you guessed it, another government program.
3) Conservatives are patriotic, believe that America is a great nation, and are primarily interested in looking out for the good of the country. That’s why we believe in “American exceptionalism” and “America first.” Liberals are internationalists who are more concerned about what Europeans think of us and staying in the good graces of the corrupt bureaucrats who control the UN than looking out for the best interests of this nation.
2) Conservatives, most of them anyway, believe in God and think that the Constitution has been twisted by liberal judges to illegitimately try to purge Christianity from the public square. We also believe, most of us anyway, that this country has been successful in large part because it is a good, Christian nation and if our country ever turns away from the Lord, it will cease to prosper. Liberals, most of them anyway, are hostile to Christianity. That’s why, whether you’re talking about a school play at Christmas time, a judge putting the Ten Commandments on the wall of his court, or a store employee saying “Merry Christmas” instead of “Happy Holidays,” liberals are dedicated to driving reminders of Christianity from polite society.
1) Conservatives believe in pursuing policies because they’re pragmatic and because they work. Liberals believe in pursuing policies because they’re “nice” and make them feel good. Whether the policies they’re advocating actually work or not is of secondary importance to them.
Really? So #9 means the conservative fight against civil rights was a character judgement issue, huh? And #5 is why the last three conservative presidents have all increased the national debt while the last liberal president reduced it.
I’ll stop here before I say something I will regret.
Anyway – I found this article pretty interesting:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080827/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_democrats_faith
Now now, Jeff. Re: #9, this is blatant truth.
Re: #5, the democratically ran congress has increased the debt, my friend. Don’t try to throw that one under the “I hate Bush” bus.
I believe it was Limbaugh who put it correctly in regards to this country’s leadership and the impact it has when ran by a democrat: Obama Bin Biden.
Since you brought up the national debt, here’s a good way to save the government 5 million dollars:
The President’s pension currently is $191,300 per year, until he is 80 years old. Assuming the next president lives to age 80. Sen. McCain would receive ZERO pension as he would reach 80 at the end of two terms as president.
Sen. Obama would be retired for 26 years after two terms and would receive $4,973,800 in pension.
How’s that for conservative thinking?
-OR-
we could end the fake war (the real war was considered accomplished over 1,900 days ago–remember the banner?) and save ourselves a whopping $341 million per day.
that would be true conservative thinking.
Eric,
which side is the humble side… hmmm.
i like looking at it in quadrants… that certainly seems to make sense.
i think for myself, i’m simply getting tired of the cubbie-holes we’re placing people into without ever really giving them a chance to speak for themselves.
i still don’t know why Obama is the “most liberal” in the Senate (a term he was dubbed only after deciding to run for president–he displaced Teddy K which is impressive!)
i think we’ve simply come down to using it as a “name calling” device to get people all riled up instead of looking to the substance of their character and the substance of their positions. the political machine moves on, i suppose, and we’re simply left with more of the same.
Sorry, I was focusing more on being clever with my end-statement than getting my point across.
What I meant was that I think a lack of humility is what keeps us divided, keeps us from learning, and instead, keeps us focused on merely trying to win.
Speaking of war, go back to your sermon post – I’ve had several pastoral friends go through it. I’ll post some comments.
#9 is not the blatant truth. You are stretching the truth to serve your points. The fact is that the moment Civil rights was passed, many Dixie-crats (southern Democrats) that opposed the bill changed parties. The fact is those reps were wearing Democratic tags. They were all conservative.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#By_party
And nice try on #5. What causes the debt is not Congress. And since you are so keen on blaming a Democratic Congress, tell me why the National debt rose faster when Congress was controlled by the Republicans? Here is the makeup of Congress by party:
http://www.davidfine.org/Congress_makeup.html
Note the Republicans (conservatives) controlled both house from 1995 until the most recent election. Now let’s look at the increase to the national debt during those same years:
http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm
Hmmm….national debt increases FLATTENED when there was a Democratic president and a Republican controlled Congress and increased greatly with a Republican president and a Democratic Congress. And with the legislative and executive in charge by the Republicans? Let’s not go there.
You want a chart with pretty colors? Sure:
http://www.lafn.org/gvdc/Natl_Debt_Chart.html
Got anything else, Dan?
Wow Jeff, I really like the pretty colors chart… kinda telling!
If you read The Earth is Flat, the author proposes a redrawing of the traditional lines sometime in the future. The new lines will bring together social conservatives with traditional labor groups and Hollywood leftists with traditional fiscal conservatives. The first group would have a platform of protectionism. The second would have a platform of globalism. I don’t know if it will ever happen in reality, but it certainly makes a lot of sense.
Dan I would be curious to learn where this definition came from…can you please cite your source?
Ron Paul folks, the only true answer!
I feel like this is no different than anything in life. Your’re a conservative baptist, or a liberal episcopalian, etc, etc.
Its obvious we will have Obama as next president, but does it really change anything? I am guessing not much. Maybe less foreign involvement which is good, but more federal powers and bigger govt which is not good. I think the biggest statement would be a 10-15% vote for anything but the two parties, even if it is split up among 4 other parties.
Tracy –
Rush Limbaugh, the Limbaugh letter, June 08.
Jason,
I disagree with the presumption of Obama as the next president. Unfortunately, the selection of Biden the Terrible has affected his chances for landing a mojority of the votes he would have recieved from Clinton supporters.
Also, the continuing babbling idiot, daddy “come under my desk all females” Clinton is hurting the democrats worse than may have been earlier predicted.
The selection of the republican vice nominee is essential, and Paul’s name is in the loop.
Jeff –
Re: #5 – Who was it that drug Clinton kicking and screaming into a bi-partisan meeting to cut the tax rates in his second term because he wanted nothing to do with a republican congress? Pressure from the congress which in turn affected the economy immensely in the late 90′s.
Jeff –
As I sit here and start to read more and more about national debt, the growth, decline, parties involved, etc., in order to respond to your pretty color chart, which admittedly so DOES show a growth when a republican is in office, you have to ask yourself how economic impact changes and at the rate it can change. Meaning, my “theory” at this point in time is that when a republican takes office, there is so much to do to clean up from the mess of a democratic rule that the cost of doing such is mind boggling. Needless to say, the warranted and necessary war in Iraq, Afghanistan, and hopefully Iran has driven costs to the sky. Unfortunately, doing the right thing has a cost – in many ways.
You’re kidding right Dan? Ron Paul will never occupy an executive seat in our government. He has some decent ideas, but he’s also just a little crazy.
I also disagree with the presumption of the emminent Obamanation. There are a whole lot of people that really don’t like him. Those of us who saw him in Illinois should know better. The guy voted in support of infanticide for crying out loud.
By the way – despite the apparent similarities in views, I would like to disassociate myself from Dan
Awe Rags…I’m heartbroken. It bothers me the twisted views so many have, and the pasifist attitude taken to discuss them. No apologies for standing firm in one’s beliefs and convictions.
Anywhoo…I mispoke. It is not Paul who is a leading choice, it is Romney. My fault. Ron Paul is one egg short of a dozen.
Speaking of leading rep. veep potentials, I’m curious as to what thoughts are about the leaders:
- Mitt Romney
- Karl Rove
- Haley Barbour
- Charlie Crist
- Rudy Giulianni (ugh)
- Mike Huckabee
- Condi Rice
Dan,
I have a hard time aligning myself to a definition that is so biased Republican, just as I would not align myself to something biased Democrat. Sometimes you need to think for yourself and critically evaluate from all sides. I think both sides have good and bad to bring to the table and surely you are not so naive as to think that one is all right and one is all wrong.
Just cuz you have a “theory” does not make that fact. The numbers are facts, and the facts show that Republicans screw up the nation debt. Show me some facts, not opinions or theories, that explain how the rate of the national debt, which was on a decline during the presidency of Clinton, took a sharp increase (that has continued) under the second Bush.
Necessary war in Iraq? Why? Tell my why in the world we are in there? Saddam had no WMDs. He had not conspired with Bin Laden. He had not violated any UN sanctions. So tell me why the invasion of Iraq was “necessary”.
ooh, this is a good one, aaron.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vs41JrnGaxc
It’s a 19 minutes video from the TED foundation. Very insightful.
Eric, great link! Thanks! I found that very insightful and extremely helpful.
Tracy,
I don’t. The liberal leftism oozed so heavily here is sickening.
And frankly, I have no problem aligning myself with the views and opinions of brilliant people such as Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, etc. because they are RIGHT!!
[...] policy. Aaron Monts asked what the difference is between conservative and liberal in his blog //re:generate and got the same answer from the first commenter, Adam Lehman, who also posed the same question in [...]
[...] Aaron Montz wrote a blog post about something that has bothered me for a while. He asks the question: What is the difference between a “liberal” and a “conservative?” [...]