The use of the terms "conservative" and "liberal" aren't all that descriptive today. Yes, I call myself a conservative but I am really more of a Constitutionalist than anything. However, in today's political climate "conservative" and "liberal or progressive" are used to describe ones position on a range of issues. But, being a conservative or a liberal does not mean you are conservative or liberal on every single issue.
Often, I refine my description of myself as "fiscal conservative" because it more accurately represents my conservative side. I have been a fiscal conservative since my freshman year in college. But, that is another and long story.
A fundamental difference between fiscal conservatives and fiscal liberals is, "What should governments role be in our daily lives?"
A fiscal conservative believes government should implement tax strategies to cover the costs of a limited government. Basically, the role of the government is to protect the country from foreign invaders, protect the people from internal threats, protect and enforce the rule of law and provide a mechanism for contract disputes to be settled and grievances, yes even those with government, to be heard and addressed.
A fiscal liberal, believes the government should do all those things AND provide for social and economic equality.
In other words, a conservative expects the government protect their right to the pursuit of happiness while a liberal seeks to have the government guarantee you will be happy. Whatever, happy and happiness happen to mean.
Sure, this is a single example issue showing the differences but in just about all cases you will find a conservative valuing individual freedom over group security; individual accomplishment over group mediocrity and limited government over socialized anything.
I write this because as the launch date of this site draws near discussions have taken place wondering if someone who is fiscally liberal will be comfortable using the information on this site to better their life. It would almost be hypocritical of someone who thinks a European Socialist model would be a wonderful thing here to use the information, data and strategies here to improve their financial lives.
For example, one of the areas we talk about is increasing your value to your employer. Now, if you are like the majority of the workforce in the United States today, you work for a small to medium business. The owners of those businesses are under assault daily by the left. They are often called "rich" and despised for their success. A question in my mind is, "if you despise people you call rich, how can you force yourself to work for them and why would you want to make yourself more valuable to them?"
Now, don't get me wrong. Liberals are certainly welcome here. Who knows? With a little time invested here, they might find themselves moving a little to right before they even realize it.
Trackback URL for this post:
social networking software
from social networking software on Tue, 08/31/2010 - 21:46Great post! I really liked the content and disposition in your topic!
Comments
The Problem with Progressivism
The problem with Progressives is that they fail to understand that the “common good” is incompatible with freedom of the individual. The bedrock philosophy of America is that the individual has the right to “pursue happiness” as he/she sees fit. America was founded by people who were trying to escape from the rigid societies of Europe that forced them to conform to things like state religions, and the rule of dictators and Kings.
Also, economic equality almost guarantees massive government control of individuals and the elimination of freedom – and there will by necessity be a two tiered system – one for the elites who control society for the “common good”, and the other for everyone else, whose lives are strictly controlled to enforce the “equality”.
Progressives also believe in a myth of regulation. The idea that increasing regulation after any criminal act or accident, like Enron or the oil spill, will prevent future like occurrences is simply unfounded. Every time there has been an industrial accident or business scandal the companies involved pay their debt to society according to the criminal and civil laws in place. Then the government passes massive new regulation, which disproportionately hurts smaller companies over larger companies, since the smaller ones don’t have the internal resources to deal with the massive work load the new regulations require. Then, in a few months or years similar accidents or scandals will occur in spite of the new regulations, leading to a new round of regulatory burdens. All the while the criminal and civil laws that have always been in place, act as a deterrent to the vast majority of law abiding companies.
Liked the post!
Hello- saw your post and like the commentary about most people not being purely liberal on everything or purely conservative on everything. Frankly, even though I self-identify as a liberal/progressive, no one political-mindset has all the answers.
Plus, since the country is comprised of people holding a wide mix of political ideas, we need to get better at communicating effectively across ideological lines, because our nation depends on it.
I did want to clarify your description of liberalism. It is not related to happiness. A pizza would make me happy right now, but I do not expect the gov't to provide it to me. Liberalism is based on the willingness to use the government as a means to actively invest in the people of the nation, so as to reduce poverty, provide education, expand the middle class, and lower unemployment.
Now, as a clear-eyed liberal, I understand that government programs are not good just by their existence - they have to effectively address an issue in an accountable and transparent manner. Also, I am interested in expanding the participation of the electorate, so we can more accurately answer the question "what do We The People want the government to do, or not do, for us?"
That is what democracy means to me, as a liberal.
Thanks again for the post!
Daryl Northrop
http://www.darylnorthrop.com/
Individual freedom vs group security
I think you are not really saying anything here with any depth and I'll tell you why:
You are repeating very superficial opinions about what the difference between the ideological positions of the right and the left. Instead of guaranteeing my "happiness" I want the government to be strong enough (and represent the people enough) to protect abuses that occur when there is a excess of what you call "freedom" which basically is the ability to exploit other people.
For example, there was recently a blow up around Rand Paul's statements about the Civil Rights Act. Under your definitions it would seem that you would support his comments and say something like, "private businesses should have the freedom to do whatever they want short of actively injuring people or break contracts, and the free market will sort them out." (Now, I'm not saying this is what you think, because I don't know, I'm just trying to follow your logic in this post). A "liberal" would argue that the government has every right to prevent lunch counters from discriminating against their patrons.
Now to argue that progressives are doing anything other than trying to ensure the freedom of minorities from economic oppression then you need to stop smoking whatever it is your smoking. The free market has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt incapable of correcting this kind of oppression, and it is through this and other government "powers" that these things are corrected. Other powers should in the future includes education, food, and health care for poor and oppressed people because my refusing these services from children is not an attempt to keep theirs or anyone else's freedom, and giving guaranteeing these things is not the same thing as guaranteeing freedom. It's guaranteeing that those who happen to grow up with money (like I did) don't get a huge head start on people and use that head start to reduce their freedom.
Post new comment