Let’s delve into some semantics. You may know already that I think a fundamental problem with all political discussion is not agreeing on standard nomenclature. In particular, the words “conservative” and “liberal” have been thoroughly bastardized by the media and by politicians and rendered essentially meaningless in common discussion.
A few months ago, I asked y’all to provide definitions for a list of political words and phrases, and the answers were all over the place, as I expected them to be. To give you a juxtaposition, here are definitions some of you provided for liberal:
- Jeffrey: This to me is a fiscal term. It refers to an individual who believes that the government should definitely have first crack at the paycheck pie. There is never to high a tax bracket.
- Joe: A philosophy geared toward erasing boundaries.
- Scott: A person who tends to be pro-humanitarian and pro-environment above all other issues. Tends to think in the long term.
- Tony: More is more.
And, for good measure, here are the same readers defining conservative:
- Jeffrey: This to me is merely a fiscal term. A conservative is someone who believes that I should chose what I do with my money, and believes that it is “my†money.
- Joe: A philosophy geared toward setting boundaries.
- Scott: A person who tends to be pro-business, anti-liberty, and spends a lot of time thinking about how wonderful the 1950’s were. Tends to think in the short term.
- Tony: Less is more.
Of course, I would never imply that definitions should be imposed on anyone by a central authority. That would be worse than the perversions that have occurred through the natural market of ideas. I would just say that before having a discussion with someone whom you think has values and ideas diametrically opposed to your own, you should first inform them of what you mean by the basic terminology you use (and vice-versa). You may find your ideas aren’t as far apart as you had originally believed.
For example, when someone says they take a “conservative” position on whether abortion procedures should be allowed, do they mean:
- Authoritarian, like Joe’s definition, having a desire to impose rigid boundaries on people.
- Libertarian, like Tony’s definition, which is to say the government should not be making family planning decisions for people.
Or if they take a “liberal” position, do they mean:
- Permissive, like Joe’s definition. Lacking rigid boundaries. Live and let live.
- Utopian, like Tony’s definition, having a desire to use the government as an instrument of social change.
Hopefully, you can see why there’s some confusion. Someone can support or oppose abortion procedures, yet describe themselves as conservative or liberal depending on how they define the terms. The substance of “permissive” and “libertarian” aren’t all that different, just as the substance of “authoritarian” and “utopian” aren’t all that different.
Under the context of government, my definition of the two terms boils down to dosages: “liberal” at its most basic level means erring on the side of more government involvement than necessary, while “conservative” means erring on the side of less government involvement than necessary.
By my definition, if you want the government to tell people what they can or can’t do, that makes you a liberal. If you want to grow any branch of government or expand any area of government authority, you are a liberal on that issue. In other words, I think both American political parties are liberal at their core because they are in the business of expanding government influence over citizens. It’s only a question of what their respective pet issues are.
When dealing with finances, at least the Democratic Party somewhat embraces this aspect of its nature. They are tax-and-spend liberals. The Republican Party denies this aspect of its existence. They are borrow-and-spend liberals. Real conservatives (by my definition, at least) don’t have a place in this lexicon.
Give the devil its due though. At least in the context of winning elections, it’s a smart game plan for Republicans to lower taxes and borrow like crazy while they’re in office, and to leave their Democratic successors holding the bag when things get shitty. Republicans look like heroes to The Folks because they lowered taxes, and Democrats have to mop up the damage that borrowing against the future caused or is likely to cause.
If Democrats ever want to break that cycle, my opinion is they should take that tool away from Republicans next time they’re in office. That was Kerry’s solitary good talking point during the last election: “pay as you go.” They should propose a balanced budget amendment for the Constitution, and force an actual choice for Republicans (when the pendulum inevitably swings back their way) between lowering taxes and bringing home pork to their constituents.
Note: This is canned content from a couple of months ago that I’m just now posting. I meant to rewrite it because I wasn’t satisfied with it, but never got around to it because of other duties holding my attention. I haven’t posted anything in a couple of days, so I decided I better just let it go.
What exactly do you mean by the word Tony?
Two points:
Liberal vs. Conservative, by their very definitions equate to change vs. status quo. Any other uses for the words are based either on the current state of national politics or on the political proclivities of the user. I will, however, agree with Rusty’s basic assertion that the common usage of the words varies from person to person and that neither party fits cleanly into the Liberal/Conservative dichotomy so often espoused in national politics.
A balanced budget amendment, while seeming like a good idea, really isn’t. There are times when the federal government should and must deficit spend, specifically, times of great economic hardship and times of war (real war not the ican’tbelieveitsnota War Against Terror.) If such an amendment could be written as to allow for deficit spending at the times when it is legitimately needed, it might work. The problem being that there are so many circumstances that might sidestep such an amendment that the legislation would likely prove fruitless. Also, as virtually any experienced bookkeeper can tell you, once you’re dealing with truly large sums of money, it ceases to be as simple as adding and subtracting and balancing the budget of a major government is not so simple as balancing a checkbook.
See, there’s yet another definition.
I don’t know exactly how many, but most states have balanced budget amendments in their constitutions. Though I’ll grant you the federal budget is a much larger animal to tame, and the ability to deficit spend in wartime could be argued as necessary, I don’t see why an amendment wouldn’t work there if it works for states.
If it were really necessary, the president could issue an executive order to temporarily circumvent that amendment anyway. But in that case, he’d better be able to provide a damn good reason for doing so.
I’ve been reading a lot (a few? Whatever) people trying to decide what unites the “liberals” or “progressives” (Feminists, Environmentalists, Gay Rights Activists, etc) and what I’ve read most is that the left at this time are all interested in social justice, whether that’s equal rights for women and/or homosexuals, or social justice via proper management of the environment (like, don’t create a toxic waste dump and then build the projects there).
As far as actually defining the terms . . . good luck. You’ll be better off just picking new ones. Or reusing old ones. I like “progressive” myself.
Individual states and the United States are radically different entities if only by virtue of their scope. As for deficit spending, specifically, the federal govt is burdened with a number of multi-billion dollar programs that have no parallel in terms of state budgeting, many of which cannot be effectively curtailed in the short term. The DoD, Social Security and most high end civil works come immediately to mind. In the event of an unexpected budget shortfall or a sudden need for massive expenditure, for instance having a major city all but annihilated by a natural disaster whilst maintaining martial control over another nation, we could not simply stop paying for Medicare or the federal prison system in order to ensure a balanced budget. In many such situations individual states have the option of appealing to the federal govt for funding in the form of grants or low interest loans. The federal government does not posses an analogous option. I will concede that the allowances for this type of circumstance could be written into such an amendment but, as I said before, the myriad of possibilities that would have to be included in the text of the amendment would ultimately hamstring the whole affair.
Now, a fiscal stabilization amendment that stated budget surpluses must be used to shore up national debt before any expansion of other federal funding is permitted, that sounds, at first utterance, to be a pretty good idea. There’s probably something to it that I’m not seeing, though.