CONSERVATIVE vs. LIBERAL

Updated 2-22-08

More Than Party Politics: These two ideas mean more than just an "Us vs. Them" squabble. Understanding Conservatism and Liberalism is no less than the key to overcoming destructive historical patterns. Can America be the world's first society to break the cycle - and remain Free?

Put simply: Conservatism means that we are "conservative" about how much government we want to have. Our Founders feared big government, and for good reason. But all governments (like all other institutions) inevitably tend to grow (it's called beauracratic inertia) if not led properly. With governments, this happens because people look more and more to it to solve all of their problems for them.

A conservative is bothered by that trend, and says so, and a Conservative politician enacts policies that SHRINK government. The reason that most people have been duped into thinking that conservatives are a bunch of fat cat "meanies" who want to pull the rug out from under the "little guy" is that the process of shrinking the government means reducing benefits to those who take advantage of the system. To people who don't understand that government can only "give" to someone if they first forcibly confiscate from someone else (via taxes), the reduction of Christmas presents seems "mean-spirited." Conservative are people who realize that true "mean-spiritedness" is found in a government that plunders the productive people so that they can use that tax money to buy votes from other folks to whom they have promised "stuff." In doing that, they tell us that there is a limit to how productive we will be allowed to become before they come after our families' money. Hardly compassionate...it keeps us down. America is supposed to be the land of capitalism / opportunity.

Winston Churchill said that: "The worst thing you can say about Capitalism is that it is the unequal sharing of the blessings; but the best thing you can say about socialism is that is the equal sharing of the misery."

Conservatives are far more liberal than a modern liberal will ever be...because they believe in getting the government out of your life so that you can be truly free - with the unlimited opportunity to prosper. I wish Senator McCain - or someone else - would get out there (like Reagan did) and articulate that. Because the republicans have shown themselves incompetent at defining Conservatism, the media have been able to define it for them....and they have gotten it exactly backwards. I think the main reason republicans don't try any harder to actually be conservatives is because all politicians get elected these days by promising to give voters "stuff" from the government. Thus, even the ones who do little more than wear the Conservative patch on their sleeve end up trying to play Santa Claus with our hard-won tax money, just as much as any Socialist-Democrat. McCain is no different, and that trend will eventually bankrupt our country the way it has all societies in history that degenerate from true freedom into democracy.

We only have three rights: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Everything else (like education, health care, food etc) are not entitlements but things we are supposed to work for, not plunder our neighbor to obtain. 

Need Some More Discussion?...

Politicians Try to Keep Us All in Conflict: The biggest challenge to a better understanding of these concepts is politicians themselves. Candidates and office-holders on both sides of the ideological aisle are unwilling or unable to clearly define the terms Conservative or Liberal. Both Republicans and Democrats are equally susceptible to corrupting influences as they learn to love their positions once in Washington. American Citizens, however, would probably be amazed at what the two terms are supposed to mean...and would probably find that there is less room for debate than they think, as common sense is common sense by any label. Politicians perpetuate unnecessary and destructive division because it is the means by which they attain power. You might be surprised at how "liberal" true Conservatism is...and vice versa.

THE PATTERN

I'll get right to that, because we are in it already. Every society that has tried freedom has lasted about two hundred years before it is torn apart by revolution, corruption, or just plain incompetence. I will go into detail in the following paragraphs, but let me put it simply right here.

An oppressive government (Totalitarianism) will likely spark an eventual uprising (Revolution). A new form of government that empowers the people over the government will then be formed (Representative Government).

This is one of my favorite quotes. From Alexander Tyler. No, he wasn't writing about the United States. This quote is well over one hundred years old. Tyler was writing about the fall of the Athenian Republic.


"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's great civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage."
 

Class Envy: Representative government tends to be Capitalistic - because there can be no freedom without the freedom to keep what you earn, and the ability to own property that is free from seizure. This is a freer state of living where people are able to use their talents and discipline to make life better for their families. Where this breaks down, however, is that no two people are equal in capabilities and in work ethic; so some people will have more than others. At this point, Class Envy seeps in, and a Welfare State will likely emerge as politicians take advantage of petty jealousies and make promises to those who "have less." That probably sounds very familiar to you.

Of course, nothing from the government is free, so the promises are paid for with what the "wealthy" have. After all, the Government can take from them through taxes - and a welfare state is okay with that plunder because there are more people who have less than there are wealthy people. What people fail to see, however, is the destructive pattern this plunder initiates as the cycle continues...

Why Democracy is a Bad Idea: A Representative Government eventually degenerates into Democracy (What we are seeing in America as of 2007, and something our Founders warned us strongly against). Democracy leads to Fascism (A term rooted in Liberalism. It means restrictive 'state control over the still privately owned enterprises'). Fascism leads to Socialism (Communism's little brother, where class envy leads the people to try and ensure equal prosperity for everyone through Government-Regulated-Collectivism). Socialism can lead to Communism (universal nationalization - where the government owns everything outright). I say can lead to Communism, because the Socialist society will often wake up to what is happening and have another Revolution before the state takes everything from them; or the Socialist state will simply disintegrate under the weight of its own folly (See Soviet Union). Either way, this disintegration is where the cycle repeats itself - starting again with oppression.

Again, we in America are on the downward side of this two hundred year slide; but we can break this cycle if we understand the forces behind the two main political philosophies - Conservatism and Liberalism. We have a foundation in our Constitution that is unique in history for its insight. Can we turn back to it and be the first 'experiment in freedom' to defeat the destructive pattern? This article is not about political parties, or about petty bickering...it's about the future for all of us. 

WE ALL SEE THINGS THROUGH OUR OWN "WORLD VIEW" - THERE IS NO OBJECTIVITY

Us vs. Them: I don't enjoy couching this or any debate in adversarial terms, but that's life. All of us naturally gravitate to one world view or another - even if we are wise enough to try not to. If anyone tells you that they are objective, they are lying - either to you or to themselves. The only way to be impartial is to be too shallow or jaded to care one way or the other, and we are all (with the possible exception of sociopaths) incapable of that. Even if I start to watch a football game where I have no favored team, I will soon choose a side I want to win. It's in our DNA.

News Sources are Never Impartial - they all have an agenda. Yes, FOX too. Ask any journalist why they chose journalism and the most common answer is that they wanted to "make a difference in the world." That motivation can be noble, but it's not impartial. Impartial would mean just reporting, without any interpretation of their own at all. But then again, even stating what did actually happen is subject to interpretation. 

No Writer is Impartial. Even an encyclopedia entry has to speak from certain assumptions held by society as a whole, as seen through the lens of the author's world view. It becomes immediately apparent as you read anything an author writes that (s)he has formed conclusions. This is to be expected. We should not expect to find objectivity in a written piece. We should look instead at whether it is a persuasive assertion with a full exploration of opposing views; is well documented; and shows an openness to being proven wrong. The latter is essential because, without this, the author's mind is too closed to give a fair rendering of the issues. When this happens, what you have is propaganda.

"Propaganda is to good writing as lust is to love - a cheap counterfeit for something noble"

PEOPLE ARE JOINERS

We are all, of course, social creatures. As such, we look for packs to join. While terms like "camp follower" come to mind when we hear that, our social tendencies are not a negative thing. That is, until we start to accept ideas just to fit better into these groups. It takes a lot of self-discipline and personal confidence to keep from falling into that trap where we just accept ideas because our "camp" has done so. It can be done, but you have to be willing to face incomplete acceptance or even rejection to do so. Most people don't do that well. Even "non-conformist" groups - like punk rockers and Goths - have a proscribed and "proper" way to rebel...complete with their own lingo, code of conduct, and uniforms.

Pre-Packaged Belief Systems: Because people are joiners, they often accept their beliefs as a package deal - whether from their church, their political party, or their friends from the clubbing scene. To illustrate: isn't it true that when you speak with someone and they tell you one or two of their beliefs...you can probably guess many of their others? Even if those ideas are contradictory to each other, they are accepted as a package deal because their chosen peer group has taken those positions. If someone tells you they are against gun ownership, can't you usually guess their opinion on abortion? If someone tells you they are an environmentalist, can't you usually guess what they think about prayer in schools? Why is this all true when these things individually have so little to do with each other? It is because the people talking have chosen their camp, and their camp has a code of conduct to which they are expected to adhere if they want to be accepted.

 We forfeit three-fourths of ourselves to be like other people

-- Arthur Schopenhauer

IT'S HARD NOT TO FIT IN

Groupthink: "Fitting in" sometimes means accepting the superficial trappings of a group of peers. That is what "camps" focus on most often. But we can each be much more than that if we can weigh every idea individually - on it's own merits - without succumbing to "groupthink."

 "The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function."

-- F. Scott Fitzgerald (1896 - 1940)

SOCIETY'S DOMINANT WORLD VIEWS: CONSERVATIVISM VS. LIBERALISM

Most People Could Not Define the Two Terms Accurately: I have spoken a lot so far about world views, "us vs. them" and "camps." I did this in order to preface the fact that the main social - and thus, political - division of people is between what has come to be called the Conservatives and the Liberals. But as I hinted at in the previous paragraphs, many people call themselves one or the other without really knowing the definitions - and consequences - of these ideas. One camp just seems more comfortable to them than the other because of the different codes of conduct. Yet these codes might have little to do with understanding the foundational ideology that should be more important.

Politicians Perpetuate the Division, of Course: The meaning of both of these terms - Conservative and Liberal - has become greatly distorted. Common usage and abuse has robbed each of their original intent and connotations. If the citizenry could hear a better discourse on what each means, we would be better able to form and maintain an enlightened society that will continue to serve the people, rather than be served. That was our Founders' Intent. They feared government - and for good reason. Yet we are not likely to see an open discourse because the politicians who frame the debate rest their entire careers on division and adversarialism. They perpetuate this party-driven, push-pull waste of energy because it is the mechanism by which they become elected.

It's Not About Party Politics; It's about Class Envy and Governmental Growth: The ideas behind the terms "Conservative" and "Liberal" play into the historical pattern we talked about in the first paragraph. The terms are two worldviews that drive societal deterioration. That is because they address the issues of "Class Envy" and "The Growth of Government." The more these two things happen, the less free we become. Sadly, we are seeing that now in America. Conservatives and Liberals look at this development differently. Despite the tendency we have to see our political parties through that leans, the fact is that our Republicans are not any more true to Conservative ideas than the Democrats are truly liberal. Thus, my article here is not at all partisan. I'm not talking about party politics. I'm talking about more foundational political ideology.

On the Conservative Side, there is not a political party out there that is true to Conservative ideals like Capitalism, Individual Responsibility, and small government. The Republicans are just as prone as any politician to love power and the trappings of their position. Thus, despite their rhetoric about wanting to have 'limited government,' they are just as likely as a Democrat to strengthen and grow the government - because it is the source of their personal power. The big question is not "which politician to choose." The question is "how do we pare down the number of politicians we empower?"

True Conservatism is all about having as few politicians as we can function with(out). Yet the government has become more bloated during recent Republican administrations than it ever has under a Democrat-led government. Few politicians articulately make the case for what Conservatism means in the first place, and fewer still are willing to implement the limited government, free-market-driven ideals that Conservatism is all about.

On the Liberal Side: The ideas I hear from that camp, and that have come to characterize them, are not Liberal at all. Interestingly, Liberals would probably be surprised at how "Liberal" true Conservatism is...but then, so would a lot of Conservatives. If more people could come to see that, we could spend far more energy on implementing practical policies - rather than fighting for the sake of "proving the other side wrong." 

WHY CONSERVATISM HAS LOST ITS MEANING IN MODERN POLITICS

Shallow Renderings of the Opposition: The connotation of Conservatism has come to be synonymous with evangelical hard-liners. The media have convinced the less-informed among us that a vote for a Conservative is a vote for restricting what two consenting adults do in their bedroom. The media would also have you believe that the Conservative candidate wants to force you to pray in school; doesn't care about the poor, the elderly, or the environment; and fantasizes about swimming in unlimited pools of oil and money that he got through a no-bid-contract from his "fat-cat" Enron buddies. To believe these things is to buy into a misleading, cartoon-ish caricature of Conservatism. To do that is not worthy of a thinking person and is no more sophisticated than seeing Liberals as tree-hugging, tie-dye-wearing bed-wetters who go around talking to trees; eating vegan; wearing rose-colored John Lennon glasses; and growing their own "herbs" on the roof of their V.W. micro bus on their way to a protest rally.

Citizen Leadership Rather Than Professional Politicians: The true meaning of Conservatism is rooted in being "conservative" about how powerful the government should be allowed to become. Conservatism holds to what the Founders believed was the historically-provable pattern of government...namely that it becomes oppressive if not vigilantly kept in check. The Founders would be horrified that anyone calling himself a Conservative would be a professional politician. The Founders would have far better preferred "citizen leadership" from productive members of society who take some time during their careers to serve for a short period.

The Meaning of Individualism: Conservatism holds that when the citizenry looks to government to solve their problems, they empower that government too much, and it will soon become an encroachment on their freedoms. When this idea metastasizes, you get fascism, socialism, and communism...which always become tyrannical. I'm not being alarmist or extreme...history shows this pattern time and time again. That is why Conservatism puts the burden of problem-solving back on the individual - opposing government programs to solve our individual problems.

This is the root of the criticism Conservatives get when they vote against a health care or welfare entitlement. It is not because they don't care about the problems of the people who would benefit in the short-term from those programs - it is that they don't want the government to get their hooks into that aspect of an individual's life. Conservatives know that government - with all of its waste, corruption, and inefficiency - is a poor replacement for your own judgment. You are a better judge of what to do with your own money than the government is. And you are highly capable, when instilled with empowering personal habits. That's the crux of a Conservative's 'Individualism.' It doesn't mean 'selfish.' Why Republicans who call themselves Conservative politicians fail to articulate this, I will never understand.

WHY "LIBERAL" IS AN INACCURATE TERM

Modern Liberalism Has Little to do with Freedom: I don't like the term "Liberal," as it applies to the modern Liberal movement. It is more accurate to call a modern Liberal a Collectivist, a Leftist, or a Socialist. Why not call them Liberals? Because the term inherently implies freedom - of action and of thought. Yet the modern Liberal movement is anything but freedom-oriented...with it's emphasis on Political Correctness that tells you what you are allowed to think and say; massive empowerment of government to regulate our lives for us; the thought that certain groups of people must vote loyally together; the expectation that their followers should blindly accept theories without examining them - so long as they fit the agenda (see global warming); affirmative action quotas that tell us all who we can hire and fire; groupthink; and anger towards people who questions their ideas. Liberals reading this may be experiencing that anger right now. But I will continue to use the term Liberal despite the inaccuracy of the term, for clarity because it is in common usage.

The Road to Hell is Paved with Good Intentions: I find the company of most Liberals I know personally to be very pleasant, as most are good people of uncommonly well-meaning intent. But intentions matter much less than results do. The modern Liberal movement needs to spend more time examining the historical pattern of their reactionary, well-intentioned solutions. At the end of the day, the main problem that Conservatives have with Liberalism is that Liberals look to government to provide citizens with a growing number of rights and entitlements. They do this because they genuinely want as many people as possible to have it as good as they can have it - so long as they don't grow "too rich." This desire is an age-old pipe dream of many societies. But, ironically, all of the cultures that have tried to institute utopias invariably fall into greater misery for their efforts, because... 

Liberal Ideas Empower the Government, and the effect of Liberal attitudes towards wealth, place governmental limitations on how successful and professionally fulfilled a person is allowed to become. When Liberal "class warfare" outcries are successful at framing the debate in "haves vs. have-nots" terms, as you see more and more in America, you have to be on guard. For when these attitudes reach fruition and hold sway, you get Socialism and Communism. This is not an alarmist statement, but the historical pattern of all societies who have tried freedom. The scarcity of a communist society is not without discernable cause. When you limit the success potential of individuals, you limit the engines that will drive all of society upwards. Thus, the Liberal emphases on class envy and entitlement are, respectively, "biting the hand that feeds us all;" and "putting the Golden Egg before the goose."

SOCIALISM AND COMMUNISM ALWAYS BECOME OPPRESSIVE

It is a Destructive Idea that Accumulating Wealth is Greedy: Yet this is a key idea of Liberalism, Socialism, and Communism; and it is this class-envy mentality that leads back to oppression. Liberals do not like Capitalism. You hear the vitriol every day that you watch politics - or even when you watch a movie. The "filthy rich" are most often characterized as shallow "fat cats" who live by the sweat of those under them. The rich  make the "working men" in their charge give up their anniversary plans to finish a report while the fat cat goes to play golf, smoke cigars, and drink cognac in the clubhouse. The "working class" are often depicted as doggedly virtuous "everymen" with whom we can better relate.

The Wealthy are At Least as "Working Class" as the Rest: Absent in pop culture caricatures is the fact that every worker owes his or her job to people with the vision to produce and implement what will become a new business. Such business owners are certainly cardinal members of the "working class," because they work double time to make it all happen. We all know the dedication it takes to grow a business - or to become a doctor - so why do we allow self-motivated politicians to tell us otherwise? Politicians do this to incite jealousy of such people; and to drive their "haves-vs.-have-nots," "Two Americas" agenda. It's nothing new...the Bolsheviks did the same thing.

Why Capitalism Works: When the people begin to buy into class envy, you get a left-leaning movement that threatens to hinder or destroy the very mechanisms that drive affluence - affluence for everyone. After all, no company can grow without hiring others. And these effects are exponentially multiplicative. When you get a job from one of these business owners - whether it be a small or big business - you earn money that allows you to buy a new car, washing machine, and the thousands of other products you use every week. And every time you buy something, you give another person a job, and so on and so on. Thus, hundreds of people are uplifted every time one person gets a job or buys even a single product. And, despite the jealousy we are inclined to feel towards someone with a nine thousand square foot house, this is ten times as true in that case...as such a house requires the products and services and job labor of so many more people than is typical.  

Communism Has to Force People to Work: By contrast to the Capitalist model, when a budding Communist society tries to remove monetary incentives for work performed - the only incentive the government has left is force...on which they have a monopoly. That is how communist countries end up with the universal result of scarcity; forced labor camps; suppression of opposition; production quotas with severe penalties for shortcomings; bread rationing; and all the other "utopian" hallmarks of socialism and communism.

"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the blessings. The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of misery."     --Winston Churchill

Limits on Capitalism and Wealth Limit the Benefit to Everyone: So the next time you hear someone leading an outcry against "greedy consumptionism," consider the historical effects of what they propose as an alternative. Burdening the wealthy and the ever-maligned Big Business with higher taxes places a strain on otherwise productive revenues. And that limits the benefits of society for all of us.

THE MONEY FOR ENTITLEMENT PROGRAMS HAS TO COME FROM SOMEWHERE

Government Produces Nothing On Its Own. So to provide for the ever-greater number of programs Liberals would like to see instituted, the government has to increase the taxes levied against the productive citizens, the wealthy, and businesses Big and Small. This is legalized plunder. It is not a sign of freedom-oriented thinking - and thus - is not Liberal at all.

LIBERAL ENVIRONMENTALISM IS MOTIVATED MORE BY ANTI-CAPITALIST IDEAS THAN BY CONCERN ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT

The public has long since tired of hearing people talk about Communism. If a writer or speaker invokes "the C word," they run the risk of being labeled an alarmist and being out of touch with reality. Yet there are certainly still many societies on Earth - some of them like China are quite large, in fact - that remain Communist. Therefore this is not a dead issue.

Limousine Liberals: The seeds of Liberal and Communist thought lie in anti-Capitalist thinking. And people become anti-Capitalist when they are led to believe that Capitalist society is a "haves vs. the have-nots" proposition. You have heard prominent politicians shriek about this for years. Examples include John Edwards' "Two Americas" idea. Ironic, considering that he just built a third mansion, travels like Al Gore in private jets (how's that for an inconvenient truth?), and is as rich as Midas himself.

The same is true for many Leftist politicians who ask their followers to make great sacrifices in their personal lives for environmentalist, anti-consumption causes while they do nothing of the sort in their own lives. It is a "do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do" approach that is not worthy of attention or respect. John Kerry and Michael Moore, with his Gulfstream jet, are just a couple of the many other examples of such "limousine Liberals," as we have come to call them. In point of fact, there are more wealthy and super-rich politicians among those who call themselves Liberals than there are among Conservatives. It is a matter of public record, if you care to look that up for yourself. You should do that, rather than take my word for it. So why then are Conservatives successfully painted as the "fat cats?" It goes back to what I said at the beginning about propaganda. That, and the fact that the (nominal) Conservatives in politics are unwilling or incapable of making their case, as I have said already.

Let me point out that - as a Capitalist - I do not begrudge Limousine Liberals their wealth. Their wealth has benefited anyone from whom they buy their luxuries. I begrudge them their hypocritical rhetoric in spite of their wealth and consumptionism.

Liberals Know Too that Americans Are Not Fond of the Words Socialism or Communism: So they do not frame their debate in these terms the way many Left-leaning political parties in Europe still do. The parties in Europe who are most like our Democratic party still see fit to call themselves the "Socialist" party; the "Workers" party; or the "Social-Democratic" party.

Environmentalism - the New Liberal Battleground: In America, again, Socialist labels are now unfashionable. But the ideas spouted from the Democrats and the Liberals in our society show where their ideology is rooted. Socialism, Communism and Environmentalism all share an anti-consumption, anti-Capitalistic modality. Therefore, the politicians and activists in America who want to limit or eliminate Capitalism have found it more effective to use the Environment as the rallying call, so that's what they do.

And Who Would Oppose the Protection of the Environment? It's a very good ploy, actually. If someone even tries to suggest a flaw in your facts or reasoning, you can just shriek back at them that they are against the environment. If you don't believe me, just try questioning the science behind global warming to a Liberal / Environmentalist. See what kind of reaction you get. You will be labeled, pigeon-holed, and dismissed on the spot without further ado - usually with great emotion. It's a very effective way for politicians to keep opposing facts, counter arguments, and debate out of their agenda.      

When I present the science - rather than the propaganda - to people on the subject of many environmentalist causes, I am often challenged with "why then do so many people believe it if it's not true?" The first part of my answer is that the wise will always be in minority, so groupthink is not a viable defense of any idea.

 "Whenever you find that you are on the side of the majority, it is time to reform."

-- Mark Twain

The Political Environment: But an even better answer to the question of "why do so many people cling to half-baked ideas" is that the Environment has been politicized. That is the only explanation for there being so many people who defend it so vehemently long after the facts have shown many of the arguments to be empty. They defend it because they want to think of themselves as Environmentalist champions. To that end, they are willing to identify with most anything that their "camp" is pedaling. It is the same kind of unquestioning devotion you will find in a religious devotee. That, and they want their party to win - their "camp" - and The Environment has become a key issue with their camp. It then becomes nothing more than "us vs. them" competition.

The reason I have seen fit to chase this seemingly tangential rabbit is that the modern Environmentalist Movement is a key component of modern Liberal thinking, and the latest threat to the Capitalist way of life that holds the promise of prosperity for our families.

No to Chicken Little. Yes to Stewardship: Being a good Environmentalist doesn't mean unquestioningly running in the direction called out by every interest group or politician who tries to tell us that the sky is falling. Yes, we should be good stewards of the Environment with which we have been entrusted...and it can be shown that we are, in fact. Factories today are less polluting - not more - than they were in the fifties. And alternative fuels are being developed and perfected to the point that they are nearly viable options. But here again, it is Capitalistic ingenuity - not governmental programs - that drive such improvements and innovations. I have far more faith in that process - where inventors toil in a shed, Edison-like, until their "eureka" moments; than I do in government support for unproductive inventors. "Government Support" means that Environmentalist interest groups (supported by registered voters, of course) get a tax-funded grant check - whether they strike gold or not.

Why Conservatives Oppose Environmentalist Politicians: It's the interest-group-serving methods  of these politicians that are in question, and the fact that they often have an anti-Capitalistic agenda. More free-market empowerment means less government - but empowering government means empowering them.

 For more about the specific facts on these issues, click here.  

Where Do We Go From Here?

A MEETING OF THE MINDS

If the two terms - Conservative and Liberal - were more accurately described in public forums, there could be a lot more meeting of the minds. The main reasons that isn't happening are that there are few good spokesmen for either side; and few people willing to listen to them - instead of following their party's line or tracking Bradgelina. This is a dangerous situation with far-reaching consequences. When phrased accurately, most people would be surprised at how much more Conservative or Liberal they actually are on specific issues.

It is probably very naive to hope that society could become more "fact-oriented" and less party-oriented. It would take a complete shift of our natural "joiner" tendencies. Great thinkers have often accomplished it, but they will always be in the minority - and they often pay dearly for thinking outside the box.

"Great spirits will always be hindered by small minds."

--Albert Einstein 

IS AN ENDURING ENLIGHTENED SOCIETY POSSIBLE?

Perhaps it is not possible on Earth to have an enduring enlightened society because there may be too few wise people around to e-ffect it. I hope I am wrong, but history says otherwise. Looking forward, though, can we expect to evolve as a society enough to improve this condition? Perhaps. After all - with the glaring exception of the Muslim terrorist threat - the world has almost universally abandoned primitive ideas like expansionism-through-conquest (imperialism); the fixed caste system; and slavery. Even the dictators of the world know better than to try such things, contenting themselves with plundering in their own back yards. That is progress, as just within the last couple of centuries, imperialism was an accepted way for even enlightened societies to grow (Pax Britannica, Manifest Destiny, White Man's Burden, et al). The fact that we have marginalized these obsolete ideas is encouraging.

WE MUST UNDERSTAND CONSERVATIVE VS. LIBERAL THOUGHT

It is a worthy hope that the world's next great enlightenment will come through a more complete understanding of the relationships between Capitalism, Freedom, and Self-Sufficient Responsibility. To do that, we need to have the foresight to break the historical cycle of giving away our prosperity and our freedoms to government. To do that, we need to understand the underpinnings of Capitalist vs. Socialist - in other words, Conservative vs. Liberal - thinking.

Quick Reference: Conservatives and Liberals - Compare and Contrast

Concerning Greed and Wealth and Capitalism

Back to Politics BaseCamp