Liberals and Conservatives

One of the majors I completed at BYU was Political Science. I find true politics fascinating and love exploring the philosophy behind how civilizations work. One of the things I learned right away was that the labels political groups are known by are usually given by the opposition and rarely reflect the true principles and values of the group that is labeled. Take the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. A “federation” or “confederation” is a group of independent states that create an alliance for some purposes while maintaining most of their ability to govern themselves. The monikers, though described the opposite situation: Federalists became those favoring a strong central government and a weak confederation while Anti-Federalists really ended up defining themselves as “the opposite of what those guys want”. This is another truism in politics. Very few movements start because a group is FOR something; they start because they are AGAINST something that is already happening.

A case in point may be the Tea Party. You will not find very much detail on how they would want a government to work. They have not outlined the basic principles covered in the preamble to the Constitution. They do not say how they will “promote the general welfare” or "provide for the common defense"; they just say they are AGAINST universal health care and FOR winning the war in Afghanistan. If anything promotes the general welfare it would be access to medical care that made us all healthier. And disease is not just the problem of the carrier. This is another misconception. His or her lot is cast. They will live or die with some help of the care they receive. Their care, though, is to the benefit of those of us that are NOT incubating the illness. Just ask the original people who populated the American continents. If they could have provided health care for the sick people (and pigs) that invaded, we might not have killed so many of them through diseases they had never experienced. The faster and better we care for that person who shares the air, water and earth with us, the lesser our chance of succumbing to their illness. But I divert.

What does a true conservative do? Well they try not to interpret rules, laws and principles with a wide brush of rationalization that satisfies their personal wealth. The American Constitution certainly provides the government with the power to levy and collect revenue through taxes and tariffs. It does not mandate that this will be done by an organization called the Internal Revenue Service, but you must endorse a liberal philosophy to take the argument that because the IRS wasn’t in the Constitution that the organization is unconstitutional.

Our jurisprudence in this country is over all very conservative. Most decisions are made by looking back in litigious history and seeing what we did last time.  This is a great tradition for propagating mistakes made through ignorance or error. I’m thinking here of the many decisions that have denied women compensation for the things men would obviously compensated for. How could anyone who ever had a mother truly believe that women were incapable of understanding politics? Yet we denied them sufferance for centuries. A true conservative might have said, “Wait! Men and Women are very much alike. Conservatively speaking we are both capable of the same things except for a very few biological determinations that require a uterus or a prostate.” But it became a liberal battle to recognize them legally as people; or at least, it was labeled that to provide the spin of dangerous and treacherous nature.

And then, what is wrong with being liberal. I love it when I can liberally reward my family with treats, gifts and experiences that help them be contributing citizens in society. I am even more liberal than that because I spend my time and resources to possibly provide YOUR children with that same opportunity.  God is a liberal. James 1:5 KJV describes him as one “…that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not;” Now a liberal interpretation of this would say, “But he’s talking about wisdom, not money.” Conservatively I respond, “Is your money more valuable than God’s wisdom? What are you going to use it for that is more important than saving someone’s life...someone's mortal and eternal life?”

If, like me, you are LDS the situation becomes clearer. In the book of Mosiah King Benjamin starts his presentation with an act of sacrifice to demonstrate gratitude for the gifts of wise teachers and a just government. This sacrifice was as tax in kind, not in species. And it was just as optional as not paying your contribution for teachers and leaders in today's world. Then he gets more specific reminding them of his example of neither seeking gold nor silver or confining them in dungeons. He goes on to identify other ills of a wicked civilization: slavery, plunder, theft and then very liberally tells them he has governed them in such a way that they would not be laden with heavy taxes. A heavy tax goes to the governor; a gentle tax provides benefit to the governed. Finally the clincher that “when you are in the service of your fellow beings ye are only in the service of your God.” We’ll skip ahead to Mosiah 4:16 where we are commanded to “succor those in need of your succor; ye will administer of your substance unto him that standeth in need [think the person or family on the street corner holding a cardboard sign]; And then for the liberals who excuse themselves through the logic of SEPs (somebody else’s problem) in verse 17 he catches us with “Perhaps thou shalt say; The man has brought upon himself his misery; therefore I will stay my hand,…” I think this effectively closes the last loophole. My understanding is that our obligation is to “succor”. That does not mean “give him a dollar”, but if you must spend your dollar to give him something that will provide succor, you had better do so as long as you are blessed with dollars.

One of the founding principles of a liberal philosophy is a belief that all men are created equal.  Now, if our actions don't indicate this value, then we don't really believe it, do we. We believe that some of us are born little better than others. Maybe we confuse better with more fortunate.  I have yet to meet a three year old who aspires to one day be addicted to meth and live in the style of the homeless. A great number of the people we see on street corners were altered by events in their lives, like combat in the military, abuse by a parent or health care that stunted their mental and physical development. Certainly they had agency to make some decisions contributing to their dilemma, but that is not my affair. Maybe they chose to respond to their draft notice instead of going to Canada. Maybe they finally hit back. Maybe they saw the liquor in the cabinet, drank it and discovered they are too weak to fight the ills of alcohol.  According to God (or at least goodness and common sense) there exists a person that for some reason cannot live within society's common rules. How do we help them?

I am very conservative with my resources. I try to gain and spend them in a way that will effectively accomplish good in the world. This brings me to my ultimate realization. A “conservative” in today’s parlance does not want to give of their hard-earned (God bequeathed?) resources for the benefit of someone else. Their money is theirs and they are entitled to spend it as they wish. I can’t argue with that. Agency is the central pillar to acquiring wisdom. Liberals are willing to give of their money if it can help make everybody better off generally. They continue to vote for education levees after their children have graduated. They pay their taxes to build roads even after they have lost their ability to drive. They will support law enforcement and justice even if they have nothing to lose.

The conservative agenda generally revolves around topics that are disinformation. What our soldiers are doing in fields all over the world, but especially in Afghanistan is not providing defense. We have little to worry about from most Afghans. At least, not as long as we don’t provoke them enough to  justify the expense to hit us back. So we’ll drop a few hundred dollars on ammunition, a few thousands on guns, a few millions on artillery and billions on the cost of keeping people somewhere they can use it without hurting us. A dollar spent on a bullet cannot be recovered. It is spent once. A dollar spent to put a family back on its feet or educate a child or cure a sick person comes back many times as that individual gains the ability to give back and contribute to society. Some, maybe most, will never achieve that status, but I don’t know how to tell which ones will so I’m better off helping them all. The worst that can happen is that my dollar will be spent NOT shooting at someone else.

I share this little story I received from a dear friend. To me, it describes beautifully the conservative philosophy as I feel it expressed today: