I am very taken aback by the original definitions of liberalism and conservatism. The concepts are so ingrained in our society that one would assume there have been no ideological changes in the terms. According to our history text (Western Civilization since 1560) the concepts are very different than we know them today. In order to understand the changes these ideologies have gone through, we need to compare the current version of each to the original theories so that we can better understand what these theories of governance mean to us today.
Liberalism: as defined by Worldnet search is "a political orientation that favors social progress by reform and by changing laws rather than by revolution; an economic theory advocating free competition and a self-regulating market." In today's world, however, U.S. liberalism is best defined as social liberalism or social progressivism, which means that while still believing in freedom, liberals, believe that it is necessary for the government to ensure the welfare of the people governed both economically and by providing for their security. Today liberals in the U.S. government are also entering into the realms of manufacturing, banking, and other financial industries to protect the public from the pit falls of the market place. These beliefs have led social liberals to increasingly attempt to legislate or pass laws to dictate social behavior. In stark contrast to the current version of liberalism, Classical liberalism is as described by our text as believing that "individual freedom was best safeguarded by the reduction of government powers. They wanted to impose constitutional limits on government, to establish the rule of law, to sweep away all state regulation of the economy, and to ensure a voice in government for men of property and education."(Western Civilization since 1560 Volume II, page 472)
Conservatism: is defined by Worldnet search as "a political or theological orientation advocating the preservation of the best in society and opposing radical changes." Today's conservatives largely hold to this definition based on the context of the U.S. Constitution, often referring to themselves as constitutionalists. Many of today's U.S. conservatives hold to the early ideals of liberalism. Freedom, limited government, rule of law, and the free market are the U.S. conservative core values. Increasingly, however more and more of today's conservatives are bastardizing their beliefs to the enjoyment special interests and whatever is the prevailing political wind of the time. In contrast original conservatism was "ultraroyalist or counterrevolutionary" (Western Civilization since 1560 Volume II, page 467) meaning that they wanted to return to the prerevolutionary governance of the monarchy.
What does it all mean? How does understanding the original philosophies help us today? On one hand it could be argued that there is nothing to be learned from this, variables in our society are too different from those in the past to make any kind quality assessments of what direction our free society should go. On an other hand it could be said that without the foundational knowledge of our political philosophies we cannot make any sound judgments on how to proceed in our society, or if our political, social, and cultural existence is in need of defense from attackers who would like to eliminate or change the government of, by, and for the people.
post script:
the entire time I was writing this blog I was watching the movie "Friday". I love that movie. I kept trying to get some of the fathers quotes in here but I just couldn't make it work. So, I'll put some here "Every time I come in the kitchen, you in the kitchen. In the goddamn refrigerator. Eatin' up all the food. All the chitlins... All the pig's feet... All the collard greens... All the hog maws. I wanna eat them chitlins... I like pigs feet." and one from Smokey "No sugar? Damn. Y'all ain't never got two things that match. Either y'all got Kool-aid, no sugar. Peanut butter, no jelly. Ham, no burger. Daaamn.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think this is a really interesting subject to write on, but I think I would disagree with characterizing conservatives as the only philosophy of the two that have "bastardiz[ed] their beliefs to the enjoyment special interests and whatever is the prevailing political wind of the time." I think there's been plenty of that to go around both ways.
ReplyDeleteOn another note, I think learning the original definitions of liberalism and conservatism are important because they help remind us that words have different meanings in other places and in different contexts. It's a good way to stay culturally aware because the US brand of Conservatism or Liberalism may not translate to every other country and every other situation, and by reminding ourselves of that fact we can help prevent misunderstandings and making blanket statements that may not be true about other people.
I agree that it is very important to realize the original definitions of liberalism and conservatism. The words "liberal" and "conservative" have such politically charged implications now that it is important to realize how they've evolved over the years. As you pointed out, classic liberalism is much closer to today's Libertarian Party platform (not libertarians, which classically are anarchists), while conservatism was a reaction to many ideals of the enlightenment, including free markets and limited government. I your point is well taken that the words today refer more to the social policies of each party. Also, conservatives and liberals alike work extensively with special interests-- that's where their money comes from and those are the organizations whose endorsements are reflected in the polls.
ReplyDeleteYour blog highlights the importance of precise language and defining our terms in history. Too often, what we think we know conflicts with what is being learned or discussed.These early political and social philosophies have changed over the years and evolved into new organisms, similar to yet different from their historical ancestors. I would also agree with both respondents that both US parties have at times had problematic relations w/ special interests.
ReplyDeleteHopefully, by studying the origins of these terms and movements, we can gain a more thorough understanding how they evolved and what factors contributed to their changing positions.