Liberalism is an ideology, philosophical view, and political tradition which holds that liberty is the primary political value. Liberalism has its roots in the Western Enlightenment, but the term now encompasses a diversity of political thought. Broadly speaking, contemporary liberalism emphasizes individual rights. It seeks a society characterized by freedom of thought for individuals, limitations on power, especially of government and religion, the rule of law, free public education, the free exchange of ideas, a market economy that supports relatively free private enterprise, and a transparent system of government in which the rights of all citizens are protected. In modern society, liberals favor a liberal democracy with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law and an equal opportunity to succeed.
This quote is from Wikipedia. I googled it, because I found myself wondering what Liberal is supposed to mean. I’m not sure I, for one, chose to be A Liberal. I guess I just found myself there years ago, during the Civil Rights Movement in the South. But when I read it, it sounds pretty good, like something I’d sign up for if it were for sale.
What I was wondering about is how did we get so polarized as we are these days? How did this split between Liberal and Conservative, between Republican, become so profound, and so divisive? So I looked up Conservative in the same place – Wikipedia:
Conservatism is a political philosophy that necessitates a defense of established values or the status quo. The term derives from to conserve; from Latin conservÄre, "to keep, guard, observe". While not in itself an ideology, it is a political philosophy that is determined almost entirely by its context. Defined in part as an emphasis on tradition as a source of wisdom that goes beyond what can be demonstrated or even explicitly stated.
Samuel Francis defined authentic conservatism as “the survival and enhancement of a particular people and its institutionalized cultural expressions.” Roger Scruton calls it “maintenance of the social ecology” and “the politics of delay, the purpose of which is to maintain in being, for as long as possible, the life and health of a social organism.”
…
Anglo-Irish statesman Edmund Burke, who argued so forcefully against the French Revolution, also sympathised with some of the aims of the American Revolution. This classical conservative tradition often insists that conservatism has no ideology, in the sense of a utopian programme, with some form of master plan. Burke developed his ideas in reaction to the ‘enlightened’ idea of a society guided by abstract reason. Although he did not use the term, he anticipated the critique of modernism, a term first used at the end of the 19th century by the Dutch religious conservative Abraham Kuyper. Burke was troubled by the Enlightenment, and argued instead for the value of tradition.
Some men, argued Burke, have less reason than others, and thus some men will make worse governments than others if they rely upon reason. To Burke, the proper formulation of government came not from abstractions such as "Reason," but from time-honoured development of the state and of other important societal institutions such as the family and the Church.
The sentence, "Burke developed his ideas in reaction to the ‘enlightened’ idea of a society guided by abstract reason" jumped out at me. It’s how I experience what people who are agruing with "Liberals" are saying – "you Liberals have lofty ideas [that are naive]. Get real!" It’s sort of a muted version of Ann Coulter’s claim that Liberalism is a Church. I know Ann is crazy, but I have been curious about what she’s saying in her circus-like way. It sure not easy to get at it by reading her words. They’re just venom. She must be a neo-Burke-ian.
Then there’s Libertarianism:
Libertarianism is a political philosophy advocating that individuals should be free to do whatever they wish with their person or property, as long as they do not infringe on the same liberty of others. Libertarians hold as a fundamental maxim that all human interaction should be voluntary and consensual. They maintain that the initiation (or threat) of physical force against another person or his property, or the commission of fraud, is a violation of that principle. Some libertarians regard all initiation of force as immoral, whereas others support a limited government that engages in the minimum amount of initiatory force (such as minimal taxation and regulation) that they believe necessary to ensure maximum individual freedom. Force is not opposed when used in retaliation for initiatory aggressions such as trespassing or violence. Libertarians favor an ethic of self-responsibility and strongly oppose the welfare state, because they believe forcing someone to provide aid to others is ethically wrong, ultimately counter-productive, or both.
You know, these things just aren’t that different. Must be something else we’re fighting about…
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.