The following article was inspired by an earlier article posted by Rick Moran, titled Who Owns the ‘Conservative Conscience?’ and is copied verbatim from the comment that I left in response to that article.
I know that I’m going to sound like a broken record with this comment, but I’ll point out for the umpteenth time that “liberalism” and “conservative” are largely meaningless terms. These terms have become defined so broadly and inconsistently and have so many internal contradictions that they have become virtually meaningless. They serve more as a means of obfuscating the issues, persuading group think, and launching ad hominem attacks than they do as meaningful political labels.
Rather than continuing to complain about the tendency of those on the “left” and “right” of painting all “liberals” and “conservatives” with the same collective brush and quibbling about who the “true” liberals and conservatives are, I propose that the writers and commenters at TMV do something about it.
From now on, if any writer or commenter launches an attack upon “liberals” or “conservatives”, he had better define who he is criticizing, or else his criticism is virtually meaningless. I see no point in criticizing “liberals” for supporting policy X or “conservatives” for supporting policy Y in cases in which only a minority of “liberals” or “conservatives” support such policies.
Four years ago, I emailed a two-page letter to thirty of the most influential liberal/progressive bloggers, proposing that liberals/progressives voluntarily adopt a new labeling scheme in order to differentiate libertarian-leaning liberals from progressive-leaning liberals. The contents of that letter and as well as my chronicling of the replies I received can be found at my previous blog.
The number and variation of ideologies that are traditionally classified on the political “left” have become so great that it no longer makes sense to label everyone who is left-of-center as a “liberal.” People who consider themselves to be socially liberal do not necessarily consider themselves to be fiscally progressive, and at times, social liberals and fiscal progressives support political policies that are at odds with one another (i.e. “live and let live” liberals who support civil liberties and oppose government intervention in people’s private lives versus “nanny-state” liberals who want the government to impose stricter anti-smoking laws and stricter gun control laws).
Similarly, the number and variation of ideologies that are traditionally classified on the political “right” have become so great that it no longer makes sense to label everyone who is right-of-center as a “conservative.” People who consider themselves to be fiscally conservative do not necessarily consider themselves to be socially conservative, and at times, fiscal conservatives and social conservatives support political policies that are at odds with one another (i.e. “free market” conservatives who support free market capitalism and oppose government intervention in the marketplace versus “law and order” conservatives who support drug prohibition and anti-obscenity laws).
There are quite a number of TMV commenters who support fiscally conservative positions (i.e. Constitutionally-limited government, free markets, decreased government spending, decreased taxation). However, you will not find very many of these right-of-center commenters defending anti-sodomy laws, anti-obscenity laws, marijuana prohibition or other such positions that social conservatives and “law and order” conservatives typically support. It makes no sense to hold these “conservative” commenters morally responsible for positions that they do not hold. Therefore, rather than launching blanket attacks against all “conservatives”, why not differentiate between fiscal conservatives (those on the right that support smaller government) and social conservatives (those on the right that support bigger government)?
Similarly, you’ll find plenty of socially liberal bloggers throughout the internet who support civil liberties, marijuana decriminalization, legalized abortion, and gay marriage but do not necessarily support higher taxes, increased government spending, and more government regulations–just as you’ll find plenty of fiscally progressive bloggers who do not necessarily support socially liberal positions. Therefore, rather than launching blanket attacks against all “liberals”, why not differentiate between social liberals (those on the left that support less government intervention into our personal lives) and fiscal progressives (those on the left that support more government regulations and increased government spending)?
Thus, instead of categorizing everyone as either a “liberal”, “conservative” or “moderate”, I propose a more ideologically consistent scheme:
Fiscal conservatives: Support Constitutionally-limited government, free markets, decreased government spending, decreased taxation.
Social conservatives: Support government regulation in the name of “maintaining order” and/or “traditional values.”
Social liberals: Support civil liberties and oppose government intervention into our personal lives.
Fiscal progressives: Support government regulation in the name of “equality” and/or “fairness.”
Moderates: Support a mixture of the above four positions.
The benefits of such a scheme are numerous:
1) Fiscal conservatives will no longer be painted with the same broad brush as social conservatives.
2) Social conservatives will no longer be painted with the same broad brush as fiscal conservatives.
3) Social liberals will no longer be painted with the same broad brush as fiscal progressives.
4) Fiscal progressives will no longer be painted with the same broad brush as social liberals.
5) Increased intellectual consistency within each group.
6) Decreased “Us versus Them” groupthink mentality.
7) Increased fostering of alliances among different political groups.
I’m sure many people will quibble with the names of these groups. Perhaps “fiscal conservatives” would rather be called “capitalists and “social conservatives” would rather be called “traditionalists.” Or perhaps “social liberals” would rather be called “liberals” (harkening back to the classical liberal tradition of the 19th century) and “fiscal progressives” would rather be called “progressives” (harkening back to the progressive movement of 1890-1920). The specific names of each group are not nearly as important as the political positions held by the members within each group and their willingness to be intellectually consistent in their positions.
Birthplace: San Diego, CA
Birthdate: That’s for me to know
Political Party: Independent
Political Philosophy: Libertarian-liberal