Conservitive versus Liberal

The terms conservative and liberal are interesting labels. For the most part they are oxymoron's. Lets first look at American conservatism. The general understanding of the word is to limit, refrain, remain the same, stagnant. For example to conserve water in a drought, to conserve wilderness by closing it off to easy access by humans, but wait those are Liberal ideas. But for some conservatives it is about the interpretation of our constitution. They hold it to be absolute in their narrow meaning of the words as the constitution was written over 200 years ago so that it will fit their political ideology.

Conservatism also includes predominance of Christian theology within their political ideology. Which of course is directly contrary to the meaning of the first amendment of the bill of rights establishment clause. However as they explain to me, the establishment clause only limits government (of the people) from establishing a national religion and interfering with the religious practices of the people, but it does not limit Christian organized religion from interfering with governance of ALL the people, whether Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist or Atheist. They want to establish an unofficial religion through manipulation of public law to include theology. Liberals interpret the first amendment as a two way street, no government establishment of an official religion or influence in religious practice and no organized religion's influence in governance and public law; fair and equal. In exchange for government prohibition to interfere with organized religion, they receive special treatment by the government with exemptions such as taxes of any kind, nondiscrimination laws in employment and membership, disclosure of finances, legal testimony of private communication between clergy and members, etc.

Conservatives profess to want very limited government, thus governance. That government should stay out of the lives of the people and business. However, they are the principal architects of legislation to do just the opposite. They want to control a woman's body and reproductive organs, they want to control what an adult can read, watch, or speak, i.e. pornography. They want to prohibit LGBT citizens their equal protection under the 14th Amendment by government prohibiting them from marrying. They are frequently the ones wanting a billboard taken down that advertises gambling or a gentleman's club, if not close the business all together. But wait, aren't they the pro business group? Why would they want to close down these businesses and the liberals want to keep them open and stop the heavy government regulations that eat up profits? Liberals on the other hand, do not want any laws that infringe on a persons liberties, regardless. A person's behavior should not be prohibited, unless it can be demonstrated through scientific analysis that by permitting that specific behavior, all of society will be greatly harmed, such as murder, rape, and crimes against property, etc.

Liberals are a mixed group of ideologies. Some lean social progressive, others lean more economic socialist, even some are fiscal conservative. But the most common thread through them is the desire for social justice, fairness, and equality. Yes, there are a handful of quote "communist," that want a classless society, but not the central economic structure style of the Ex-Soviet Union or Marxism. Yes, many are conservationists-ecologist wanting to preserve natural resources and wilderness from exploitation,and are concerned about climate change. Most interpret the constitution in more liberal, broader terms than conservatives. Progressives feel that the constitution should be true to the original intent of each amendment, but also must consider society in current times. Obviously when it was written, slavery was acceptable and blacks were considered 3/5th human and women did not have legal standing, and that was acceptable. It was a white-man's world.

If our social maturity over past 200 years was not considered by the courts and laws, today slavery would still be practiced, and women would not be able to vote or own property, unless acquired through marriage and if widowed and remarried, the property would pass to the new husband automatically. There is a small handful of ultra-conservatives who want to return to the strict interpretation of the original constitution, thus returning to slavery and elimination of woman's rights. Most of us have matured intellectually to recognize that it is wrong to enslave another human or to deny women their civil rights. Yet, the majority of conservatives have no problem with denying LGBT's their civil right to marriage and all the civil liberties and responsibilities that flow therefrom. Liberals are wanting the courts to interpret the 14th Amendment to include LGBT marriage under the equal protection (justice) clause.

What I find interesting is that it was the progressive conservatives who helped push emancipation of slaves within the Republican Party of Lincoln. It was the progressive conservatives that supported Susan B Anthony suffrage movement and help pass the voting act for women. It was the progressive conservatives like Sen. Berry Goldwater that supported the Equal Right Amendment and the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act of 1964 along with the Democratic Party. After the civil rights movement push by the civil libertarians of both the Democrats and Republicans, the south was so angered at the Democrats and the progressive Republicans, that they started to switch to the social-conservative wing of the Republican Party and started their push to eliminate the progressive libertarian conservatives out of the party.

In the 1920's, religious leaders obtained political power within the Republican Party, and pushed for the 18th amendment, we call prohibition, which passed in 1917 but didn't work and was repealed in 1933. With that win they shifted their core values from human rights and civil liberties for all to a very limited ideology that reduced their care and concern for their fellowman, unless it served them well politically, economically and public relations wise. They turned inward to capture more political power and control to move their theological ideas into public policy. Instead of the focus of caring for the sick, poor and common man, they teamed up with commerce to obtain the capital they needed to move their agenda forward. The two interests which logic would dictate are not compatible, have developed a very interesting alliance. It is interesting that Christianity once was against capitalism and the greed it gendered. They instead supported a more socialist ideology. But today they now embraced high finance and capitalism by building large investment portfolios to gain political power. They have lost the mantra of taking care of the sick, the poor, the elderly and the common man. They are fighting against health care for everyone now being considered. They are fighting against the labor unions that try to help the common worker have a better life. They have not spoken up against the exportation of American jobs to other countries. They have not spoken out against the abuse and greed of the financial market. What does Christ stand for now?

During the conservative Eagle Forum's convention this weekend, one of the Republican challengers for Senator Bennett's seat pledged "to counteract feminism's influence on national policy." Does that mean repeal the right of women to vote, own property, able to be an individual separate from their husbands. The other 2 challengers along with her wanted to repeal the 17th Amendment of the constitution that gave the power to the people to vote for senators. Prior it was the state legislators who chose the senate. They want strict interpretation of the constitution as it was originally written, thus any amendments written thereafter should be repealed. That would bring back slavery as well. They also wanted to remove all government regulation of business. We have already seen what that will do to the economy. For me this election year, knowing that the Democratic challenger does not stand a chance at winning in Utah, I will most likely vote for the conservative Bob Bennett; just so these other nuts don't get in.

One major misunderstanding about liberals and progressives is that we are old school socialist and anti-capitalism. Socialism and Capitalism are not mutually exclusive. On the contrary, we embrace capitalism, but with oversight to limit the inherent abuse of greed that harms everyone, as we have seen this past few years on Wall Street and the economic collapse. Responsible and fair capitalism is the best economic policy that has proven itself over hundreds of years. Today Europe's social-capitalist countries are mixed economies with very pro-capitalism with capital being owned privately, private property ownership, etc., but with socialistic public services, such as health care, which to them are better provided by government through taxation at a lower cost than the private sector. But conservatives have pressed the lies that we want a Soviet style centralized economy and their form of Marxist socialism to demonize liberals as evil. As Karl Rove has stated, "...it might be a lie, but if you say it often and loud, it will become the truth, regardless of the facts."

My philosophy is more social Egalitarianism than anything. What that means is social equality; all people are equal in society and under the law. It does not advocate the elimination of persons right to accumulate wealth. Just that the laws of the country are blind to any class or category of citizen, no one has more rights than another person. It actually was the foundation of Christianity before power and greed corrupted them.

I am afraid that society has become so polarized regarding these labels, that reason and cooperation is no longer possible.