Conservativism defined: Are you really liberal? 
October 19, 2009 by Matthew Jarzen
Modern liberalism misunderstood to empower individuals
If you’ve read any of my articles recently, you’ll discover I’m no fan of the left and the left is no fan of me. This is a position I relish, as it makes my day more exciting.
As you have hopefully noticed in my articles, the liberal “help the people” attitude isn’t as cracked up as you thought it was. You may now be asking yourself what the alternative is.
I can confidently tell you that the alternative is to be a conservative.
The alternative lies within you – the individual.
But what is conservativism? As modern liberals seek to deny individuals their natural rights in favor of an all-powerful central government, conservatism seeks to enrich the individual by securing and protecting their natural rights by denying the government unnecessary power.
Take, for instance, my right to free speech — which I’m sure many of you wish I didn’t have — that is a natural right. A conservative seeks to protect that right, no matter who is speaking. Even though I absolutely disagree with what a statist would say, I would never deny them the right to say it.
Unlike the statist I debated, who could not clearly define liberalism, I can give you a clear answer as to what conservativism is. The principles are simple and applicable to everyone.
Conservativism is the belief in freedom, liberty, self-reliance, personal responsibility and independence. All those principles are applicable to everyone, regardless of race, class, gender, religion, ethnicity, national origin, age or sexual orientation.
Conservativism is the belief in the individual. Conservativism holds that the individual is ultimately responsible for their own life — that choices and decisions have both positive and negative consequences and that whatever happens, the individual should take responsibility for those actions.
Conservativism believes that the strength of our nation lies not in a powerful central government, but in the power of the individual to make their own choices and live their life the way they want to.
A conservative will never tell you that you have to drive a certain kind of car, use a certain vocabulary because it’s politically correct, buy a certain kind of house or go to a particular type of school.
A conservative believes in choice. In fact, conservatism is all about being “pro-choice.”
But how can conservatives be pro-choice if they’re against abortions?
The term “pro-choice” is a euphemism liberals use to yet again mask what they really believe. “Pro-choice” to a statist simply means that they are pro-abortion. I want you to remove all notions of abortion from the term and simply look at what is written and what it implies.
Liberals are anything but pro-choice. When it comes to the school voucher program, which would give parents a choice to send their children to private schools, the pro-choice left is anti-choice.
When it comes to choosing to purchase a firearm, the pro-choice left is again anti-choice. If you want to drive an SUV, the left is anti-choice too.
When it comes to whether employees should choose whether or not to join labor unions, the left opposes the choice granted by right-to-work states.
When it comes to a choice of how one wants to spend their hard-earned money, the left is anti-choice.
Conservative principles alone allow the individual to choose what’s best for them. As conservative principles promote freedom, independence and self-sufficiency, they allow you to choose.
The conservative firmly believes that the best mechanism for the individual to make choices lies within the free-market economic system – the system that has single-handedly created more wealth and innovation than government could ever hope to achieve.
By our very nature, conservatives are progressive. Though we seek to preserve the things that work for us, like our Constitution, we also seek improve the things that do not.
Where we differ from statists is that instead of the radical, revolutionary change President Barack Obama wants to institute — conservatives seek change through a carefully thought-out process.
You’ve often heard statists call themselves progressives, but that’s only a strategy to mask who they really are and what they really believe. “Progressive” sounds friendlier.
Are you against progress if you oppose a self-described progressive? Most importantly, how can you be a conservative if you’re a progressive?
Again, understand that the principles of conservatism are what are progressive. Conservative principles encourage individuals to be free, independent, self-sufficient, personally and fiscally responsible, and propel them to make progress in their lives.
A conservative in government seeks to institute policies that encourage individuals to progress their lives by applying principles that have worked for us.
Statist principles that promote control and a nanny-type government encourage the individual to abandon responsibility for their own actions and destiny. They encourage the individual to give up his rights in favor of group rights and security provided by the state.
They encourage individuals to be dependent upon government for their sufficiency. This policy of dependence is regressive, not progressive.
A conservative does believe the government has a role to keep our civil society in order. No conservative seeks the abolition of government — we recognize that government is an insatiable beast that feeds off the freedom of others. It is a necessary evil — one that must be limited in size and scope.
I’ve only touched the tip of the iceberg. I encourage you to look further and seek the truth, as ultimately you’ll find that the truth is conservative.
I think it’s hilarious that the liberals are up-in-arms over your last article. I can’t wait to see that debate!
Matthew, I think you’re equating conservatism with libertarianism. Libertarians would agree with your opinions on personal liberty and responsibility, and would support any means of achieving that, including eliminating current infrastructures, such as our system of public education. Libertarians would also not factor in the cost of such destruction, either in fiscal or social terms. The consequences of leaving education to the responsibility of individual parents would simply be the price of liberty.
Conservatives, on the other hand, seek to conserve the status quo (ergo the name), and consider social and financial costs, rather than making decisions based strictly on ideology. True conservatives therefore see the value of investing in the education of all children, both for the social benefits and to prevent the costs of failure down the road (criminal justice and public assistance) not to mention the interest in boosting more of our population into the tax base so as to reduce the burden on all.)
So are you sure you’re a conservative?
Another hate-filled diatribe that raises nothing new. Can’t really argue with crazies like this, just yawn and move on.
“KM on October 19th, 2009 1:13 pm
Another hate-filled diatribe that raises nothing new. Can’t really argue with crazies like this, just yawn and move on.”
Where exactly is the “hate”? I see definitions spelled out (whether or not you believe they are correct, but where is the hate? The hate speech is even more tired… We protest (peacefully) and get called hate-mongers and an angry mob, we support our military and a strong defense of our country and allies, we are war-mongers.
I’ll tell you what I hate… I’ll spell it out. I hate “intellectuals” that throw out the hate labels in a worthless hit and run without backing it up. Get a backbone, get a brain, and explain your label of hate.
Mr. Bubba,
I think you have the two notions severely confused. Conservatives do not seek to maintain the status quo, but simply want to preserve the things that work, as Jarzen pointed out, such as our constitution. The believe in a slower, more deliberate method of change to any system.
For that change to occur, it must be experimented with–that is what the role of the several states are. If something obviously doesn’t work in one or more states, it sure won’t work thoughout the nation.
Say if healthcare was passed tomorrow, would Conservatives rally to maintain it as it has now become the status quo? What conservatives seek to do is to limit the influence of government over the individual thus giving the individual more freedom and control of their own lives. Whether you call that libertarianism or conservatism, it is virtually the same.
KM,
As Josh pointed out, where is the hateful diatribe in Jarzen’s article? I welcome you to point it out. Sure Jarzen pokes at liberals throughout the article, but that only serves the purpose of high-lighting the differences in viewpoints.
I echo Josh, get a brain and a backbone. The only reason this drive-by attack is made is because you have no argument to counter Jarzen’s article.
Ron Paul: a real conservative. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMnF7kOITig
In response to conservatism defined: are you really liberal: I suggest that on the surface conservative principles are virtuous, but when the fundamental application of conservatism becomes public policy, it is clear conservative ideology is anything but empowering personal choice in the context of inherent freedom (or free-will) of the individual. For it is the liberal thought that allows the individual—in a somewhat existential way—the right of the individual one’s own intellectual thinking and self-expression. Liberals often test the boundaries of social norms. Most importantly, liberalism by its very nature pushes for the social justice; Americans are all equal in our humanness. It’s the conservative ideology which seeks to dehumanize and marginalize those who don’t follow a certain construct of conservative values (much of it religious).
Regarding school vouchers, no evidence exist it would produce any better results for American public school systems. In fact, it would actually distort the allocation of resources away from schools which need them the most. The affluent schools become better and the schools located in distressed areas become worse: it would be akin to the devastating effects of rent controls. And let be clear, education is paramount to the long-term economic success of Nevada. Liberals push for a much higher degree for academic achievement.
Finally, liberals are progressive as we seek higher living standards and an intrinsic need to improve the quality of life for all people, even if conflicts with traditional values and social norms. Particularly, when those values become obsolete or are in of itself hurtful to certain groups of the American population.
In general, the great divide between conservatives and liberals is the place and power of government. The second great divide is social issues.
CONSERVATIVES
- Conservatives want a small, efficient government and a strong military.
- Conservatives want the small government to leave them alone but to protect them and the country.
- Conservatives want low taxes and little to no national debt (though they have a spotty track record)
- Conservatives support moralistic government
- Conservatives are more principled in their social beliefs (based usually on religious beliefs)
LIBERALS
- Liberals want a large government and strong diplomacy.
- Liberals want a large government to give out entitlements and think diplomacy can be used in almost all situations.
- Liberals want higher taxes and a reasonable amount of debt to fund their entitlement programs (though they tend to spend a ton as well)
- Liberals support “go with the flow” government
- Liberals tend to be more pragmatic in their social beliefs
On to school vouchers, C. Timothy Walker said that “no evidence exist it would produce any better results for American public school systems.” Well in about 5 seconds on Google I found evidence to the contrary. http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/04/03/dc-vouchers-better-results-at-a-quarter-the-cost/. Liberals don’t want school vouchers because the Teacher’s unions don’t want them. In my opinion, if the teachers unions were for them we would have had them years ago.
It also just makes sense that when you put competition into an area of the economy that things typically get better. Think about anything you buy TVs, cars, houses, cell phones, all of those got better over the years due to competition and the free market. Then why wouldn’t we have the same result with schooling?
Hmmm.
David, your point is well taken about the voucher system.
But I would suggest you do some more research as there is definitely good evidence on both sides of the school voucher problem – check out the case in Chile.
They’ve implemented a voucher program, at least in some areas. It hasn’t done much for them as the voucher program has many fundamental flaws. If you wish to discuss this matter further, I can name some of them.
But, I definitely haven’t made up my mind on the issue yet.
Also, from your previous comments, I understand that you are socially and fiscally conservative (please feel free to correct me if I’m wrong). How does the government getting more involved in education go along with the small government ideology?
I have tried twice to respond and it won’t post my comment =(