Unabashed liberal examines political extremes

A good friend said to me, recently, “There’s someone you should meet, who strongly believes in a political philosophy quite different from yours. In fact, this person remarked to me that he would like to hear how you could possibly justify yours.” This sounded like a challenge to me, so after a brief moment of defensive posturing, I began a serious internal search for a proper answer.

The immediate problem I perceived was to try to establish the two differing philosophies allegedly at issue. Assumptions are usually risky, but for the sake of argument, I assumed that my “accuser” is somewhat of a Conservative by today’s model and that he perceives my beliefs to march under the Liberal banner.

First, I wanted to see if I could briefly but fairly identify the two philosophies in question. The terms Liberal and Conservative or, more commonly, Left and Right, are too cliched to be clearly identified these days. In fact, they seem as often to be empty epithets as reasoned positions. There are more polar positions, known as Far Left and Far Right, but these seem beyond any hope of reasonable debate. Therefore, I decided to only consider some of the most commonly accepted distinctions.

To begin, every country has some type of forum, tribunal, parliament or other established seat of power, which is influenced by the same ancient differing philosophies. In the American Congress, proponents of the Left and the Right won’t even sit together. The details may vary widely, but at the bedrock of decision-making lies a fundamental question of how humanity is seen and understood.

We can go back in history as far as the written word will take us. Beyond that, archeological evidence appears to confirm what the word indicates. It is well understood that Man is different from the other animals. Man exhibits something unique, which can be called soul. Within that extraordinary dimension are found such characteristics as appreciation, compassion, conscience, concern, pride, guilt etc. etc. Like DNA, these traits are present in all men, in varying degrees. They account for most of the remarkable achievements and, sadly, some of the worst disasters recorded by mankind.

From the beginning, mankind’s achievements have followed a trend line generally upward - making improvements in existing features or issues. It is not a straight line, but it persists in an upward trend. Man continually strives to improve his lifestyle – even his environment. Each generation searches for things “new and improved.” The great divide has always been over what constitutes progress and how best to achieve it. In this, we find the core understanding of what distinguishes a “Liberal" from a “Conservative.”

It appears that the great majority of mankind has always preferred to live in communities. The practical advantages seem obvious. The division of labor greatly enhances the possibility of bounty for all, and the presence of numbers provides for a common protection from would-be marauders. From the beginning, it seems to have been recognized that the best chance for an individual to succeed was to utilize the advantages found within a group. It also follows that individual achievements are embraced by the group when they have the effect of improving the group as a whole. As the group prospers, so does each individual to some degree. This, in turn, creates more incentive for individual initiative. The two are inextricably bound.

What, then, should be the role of individual initiative, and what are its best applications? A brilliant scientist may find a cure for a devastating disease, thus improving the health of the community. Keeping the cure to himself would make no sense. Surviving when the rest of the world is suffering would be unconscionable, plus simply not practical. It is, therefore, not only humane and compassionate to share the cure, it is completely pragmatic. He benefits along with everyone else. In another example, the brilliant industrialist Henry Ford would never have achieved his stardom much less his fortune had he not considered the financial restraints limiting his target market. Doing good can, and often does, achieve a pragmatic goal as much as a philosophical one.

Therefore, it should be easy to understand that there is a profound reason for individuals within a society attempting to find benefits for the society. There are strong pragmatic reasons. The individual is best served and protected as conditions improve within society as a whole. Ironically, Individualism has its best chance of fulfillment in a composite environment.

People who understand this best and are most inclined to practice its tenets are generally known as Liberals.

There is adequate evidence, though, that some individuals have been strongly inclined to live independent of any outside influence. Perhaps these individuals perceived an advantage in being able to move about freely while following herds of animals or changing crop conditions. Whatever their motivation, they seemed determined to decide their fate for themselves.

Even among Nomadic wanderers though, there are circumstances where community offers a better opportunity for success, if only temporarily. They may live individually, but they often recognize the advantages of getting together briefly to gather crops, herd animals, or perhaps even to learn new skills.

Undeniably, a strong emotional pull may exist, drawing some individuals to break free of all constraints and live with no boundaries, no obligations, no imposed conditions. Strong individuals with such yearnings settled America’s great west. Great explorers throughout history exemplified such traits. Catering to the masses must have seemed foolish, non-productive and overly sentimental to them. Given the right circumstances today, many are still confident of succeeding on their own just fine. Indeed, they firmly believe that all men could do so, and should. Enabling that process is anathema to them, however.

They brush off the advantages afforded them by society other than those of primarily utilitarian value. It would not be fair to characterize their philosophy as being indifferent to the arts, but they generally see no obligation to use society’s money to fund them. Ironically, once the most successful of these individuals reach their potential, they fully expect and greatly desire an advanced sophisticated society within which to enjoy the benefits of their efforts.

I think the most recognized term for this group would be Conservatives.

The overall conclusion through eons of time is that community has been generally preferred over total individualism. As a practical matter, it is more and more unavoidable. In general, it follows closely that communities and individuals often complement each other and each is benefited by advancements by the other. The most fiercely independent individual finds himself at a disadvantage if he does not avail himself of some benefits of a community. Conversely, society expects to be motivated by individual initiative and is even willing to promote and subsidize it. 

Conservatives and Liberals are both best served by containing each other to some extent while searching for some accommodation. Yin and Yang furnish centrifugal spin, preventing an overwhelming force from destroying either. Stability should never equal stagnation, however. Neither should the eternal trend toward beneficial progress be held back.

Finding ways to promote progress, ensure justice and benefit the common good is the work of Liberals, I believe. Perhaps the role of Conservatives should be to make sure it is done right.

That’s my position, and I’m sticking to it.