I have noticed in debating various issues lately that many people don’t seem to recognize a difference between holding a “Conservative” or “Liberal/leftist” opinion on an issue as being different from whether the specific “opinion” is arrived at via a Conservative or Liberal/Leftist philosophy.
A Conservative philosophy seeks to conserve (preserve, uphold, embrace) the integrity of the U.S. Constitution as it was originally intended unless it is amended in the prescribed way.
The Conservative believes that our founders placed ultimate trust in the vast majority of people to make all their own decisions.
Conservatives believe that trust was well placed.
The founders believed that most of the people would make decisions that would be beneficial to the individuals themselves and their communities. Our founders reasoned that if all men had the freedom to make their own decisions (and reap the results of those decisions) a country would function more efficiently and be more prosperous for all.
The founders believed that the few who would abuse this liberty could be dealt with effectively by a judicial system that demanded accountability.
This is the Conservative philosophy.
The Liberal/Leftist believes that opinions about the “important” stuff can not be left to the individual. They believe that the few “elite” thinkers should make these decisions for the rest of us.
The Liberal/Leftist does not have a problem with individuals making decisions about what they consider inconsequential matters but the important stuff can not be trusted to the individual citizens.
Some Liberal’s disagree about which issues are important or inconsequential but the philosophy that the superior thinkers should make the important decisions is a Liberal/leftist philosophy.
It embodies a general lack of trust in the people and a general trust or faith in government.
It is entirely possible for a person to embrace a Liberal/leftist philosophy but arrive at a Conservative opinion; this does not make the leftist a Conservative.
As an example:
A “Pro Life” view on abortion is considered by most to be a “Conservative” view but many arrive at a Pro-Life opinion using a leftist philosophy.
I am referring to religious individuals who believe their God who they know condemns abortion. Therefore they should make the decision for everyone who does not know or believe this superior information; they believe the “important” stuff should not be left to the individual.
A person with a Conservative philosophy opposes the legalizing of abortion on Constitutional grounds. They believe faithfully preserving the right of all men to Life, Liberty & Property unless due process is applied is necessary to protect the integrity of the Constitution unless it is properly amended.
In this way it is possible for both political philosophies to arrive at the same opinion on an issue.
The Conservative believes that all the chipping away that has been done to the Constitution has made America worse and led to needless oppression of men who should be free.
The Conservative may be religious (I am) but the Conservative does not desire all his articles of faith to become “law”.
The Conservative believes that protecting the integrity of the Constitution is the only way he can be assured the liberty to worship God as his conscience demands, even though he knows that this liberty will result in some individuals making choices that he considers “sinful”.
Many believe that if they see a list of ten hot button issues and they agree with the recognized “Conservative view” on 7 or 8 of these issues then they are Conservatives in their philosophy.
If they align with the recognized “Liberal view” 7 or 8 times out of 10 then they believe they are Liberal/Leftist in their philosophy.
It is accurate (most of the time) to describe the opinion reached as Liberal or Conservative, but the method used to arrive at the decision is what determines the philosophy of the person who holds the opinion.
This is relevant because the U.S. Constitution is a philosophical document.
It establishes a structure for a Federal Government and places massive restrictions on that government but refrains from restricting the people almost entirely.
It demands that the Federal government provide for a common defense sufficient to defend against “all enemies foreign & domestic” but leaves the details about how best to accomplish that to the future representatives and their voters.
It describes the structure of the judicial branch but declares very few laws or consequences.
It does not require judges to be lawyers or have any legal education or experience.
It does not require Presidents or Congressmen to have any education at all and only the President is restricted by age or birth place.
As a Conservative I am forced many times to support liberty for actions I disagree with because my Conservative philosophy is the trump card that I apply. These are frightening moments and one can only imagine how terrifying it must have been for the Founders.
There is no limit to the amount of “yeah but what if….” scenarios that can be dreamed up when you start imagining Free Men using only their own best judgment in making most choices in life.
In recent days I have been involved in numerous debates about some of these “scary issues”.
- Legalized drugs
- Speed limits
- Localizing environmental regulation responsibilities
- Gun control laws
- Health care provision
- Building codes and zoning restrictions on private property
Many people who argued with my positions on these issues consider themselves “Conservatives” and are greatly offended when I say otherwise.
They fail to see how all the arguments they made to support their opposition was based on the Liberal philosophy that people could not handle Liberty on important matters. Only the government should make those decisions.
Most of time I agreed with their facts & opinions, but I disagreed that they were in a small minority of people “smart enough” to render those opinions.
To oppose Liberty demands that one elevate themselves to a superior level of intelligence and a greater capacity to make wise judgments than most other people.
I refuse to believe that an appreciable number of Americans would become drug addicted, unsafe driving degenerates who build houses from cardboard, ignore their own retirement needs, ignore their local school curriculum and defecate into their drinking water if the government did not uses its authority to regulate all their decisions in these matters.
And thousands of other matters as well.
Our founders believed we could handle it and so do I.
“I would rather be exposed to the inconveniencies attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.” Thomas Jefferson.
Many know and love this famous quote until the time comes to actually risk the application of liberty to a scary subject, then they retreat to the other philosophy.
I am a Conservative, I am far more afraid of a regulated, nanny state America (today’s America) than I am of an America that embraces radical freedom.
It is far less important what side of the “right/left” divide our individual opinions land on than what philosophy we embrace. We can be divided & conquered if we focus on individual opinions, we will be unstoppable if we are unified in philosophy.
The left is winning because they have convinced most Americans to view every issue from a selfish perspective without regard for the philosophy our founders established in our Constitution.
Both sides now believe our personal opinions on most matters should cause us to fight for laws that will force our opinions on the rest. That is a leftist philosophy. Even if it arrives at a “right wing” position we still lose.
Until we embrace a Conservative philosophy we will never establish a significant enough majority to combat the current philosophy that rules both sides of the American political spectrum.
The Liberal/Leftist philosophy.
By -RET423
{ 3 comments… read them below or add one }
I re-read this post twice! Well said and I could not agree more. Keep it up! This does a great job of showing applying conservative principals to social issues. I would love to read your view on how conservatism would apply to financial and foreign policy as well.
Rich Mitchell
The Plain, Hard Truth
An information engine for Conservatives
I understand your position, but I believe the Founders had far less faith in the average person than you imagine. Our government was designed to keep power out of the hands of the people. We’re not a democracy, we’re a republic; not even the President is elected directly.
I would also disagree with the notion that the Constitution is a philosophical document when it states for itself that it is a legal document. As such it is subject to interpretation. For example, if we read the Second Amendment literally “arms” would be limited to 18th century musketry; a literal reading of the First Amendment would permit absolutely no restrictions upon speech or the press, including calls for violent revolution and publication of obscenity.
Finally, a conservative reading of the Fourteenth Amendment must conclude that fetuses are non-persons (they are neither born nor naturalized), and are therefore non-citizens for whom society has no obligation to protect either life, liberty or property, or render due process. By your standard, any “true” conservatives would support unlimited abortion rights.
For someone using the moniker “History Writer” you have a unique understanding of the 14th amendment.
“Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. ”
It clearly adds the “due process” requirement to all persons, hence the “nor” addendum. This is consistent with the Preamble’s declaration that “all men are created equal”, not “all men are born equal”.
And my statement that the Constitution is a “philosophical document” does not negate its status as a “legal document”. The two terms are not mutually exclusive.
Both are equally true in describing the U.S. Constitution.
Your statement that the Constitution is designed to keep power out of the hands of the people is ridiculous. The people are given ALL the power every 2,4 and 6 years to express their opposition to the day to day actions their Representatives take between elections.
Your comments about the 1st and 2nd amendments are not intellectually worthy of a response.