I thought I would start this blog with a previous discussion on ideology.

Understanding Ideology: Comparing classic conservatism to liberalism

People are social beings, thriving on interaction with other groups and individuals. Often, underlying the outward expressions of love and kindness or sympathy and compassion, is a desire to simply belong. Communities are formed all around us and they give people the special gift of commonality; a sense of belonging, support, and comradeship that earns an endearing place in their heart. Accumulation of collective thoughts, ideas, values and perspectives comprise ideological world-views that unite people groups. As Karger and Stoesz note, ideology, being the framework of commonly held beliefs, is the vehicle through which we gain the perspective on how we view the world. More specifically, ideology tells us how the “world works: what has value, what is worth living and dying for, what is good and true, and what is right” (Karger & Stoesz, 2006, p.5). Ideology, in a sense, provides people with elements necessary to forming community. This post will introduce two dominant ideologies in America, Liberalism and Classic Conservatism, and briefly explore how these competing perspectives can alter perception of social problems and thus influence proposed solutions.

            Liberalism

            It is an essential tenet of liberalism that all policy ultimately revolves around progressing the public good. The economic concepts of capitalism, specifically encouraging the growth of the private sector, is affirmed, however the successful of the private sector must assume responsibility for the public good. Since President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal policies, liberals have desired an expanding economy to be “coupled with the growth of universal, non-means-tested social welfare and health programs” (Karger & Stoesz,2006, p. 11). Liberalism does not advocate for the de-establishment of capitalism, since capitalism and free-market economies encourage accumulation of wealth. Liberals desire to see a portion of that wealth redistributed to promote the public good. Liberals prefer that a strong and centralized government be established to govern this process through taxation and social programs, a governmental machine that historically has had the role of creating a Welfare State. As Harry Hopkins argued under the Roosevelt administration, “tax, tax; spend,spend…” (2006). It is important to note the concept of social justice in the context of liberal ideology. There are those who are unable to benefit by the free-market, capitalist economy in America due to disability, race, age, and sex. Liberals are intentional in calling attention to instances of oppression and alleviating inequality when possible. In summary, traditional liberal values include government taxation of the wealthy in order to provide social programs and services that benefit the socially oppressed and impoverished for the betterment of the public good.

            Classic Conservatism

            Conservatism is built on a fundamental belief in the pursuit of freedom and justice. In that pursuit, conservatism holds to core principles of tradition in the human experience, the local community, and a person’s right to what they own (Kirk,R., 1993). This is why conservatism places such an emphasis on States’ rights and local governance of municipal services and education. Conservatism calls for a free-market economy where people have as much opportunity to pursue success, self-interest, and personal property as they can. Government must place as little restriction on corporate businesses, small business owners, and citizens; the lesser restriction applied to blue and white-collar workers alike. According to conservative thought, and the political agenda of conservatives in America at the end of the twentieth century, the Welfare State erodes when free-market capitalism exists. Essentially, free market capitalism tears down socio-economic mechanisms that a Welfare State establishes, and it is those mechanisms that perpetuate poverty rather than lessen it. In a free market economy it is in an individual’s best interest to work since that system rewards those who work toward their self-interest(Karger & Stoesz, 2006, p. 11). Conservatives do not ignore social justice; rather they place responsibility for those who cannot participate in the system on the social conscience of the private sector, which possesses the resources to aid those in need thanks to a free-market economy (2006, p. 11).

            Russell Kirk, in his Ten Conservative Principles,asserts that conservatism first and foremost recognizes the existence of moral order, the principle of human imperfectabilty, and the danger inherent in power(Kirk, R., 1993). Conservatism asserts that it is the government’s responsibility to provide protection for its citizens and the power source for that protection must be kept in the hands of the people. Outside of this directive, government should have as little involvement as possible. Simultaneously, conservatism has fractured itself because of these same principles when conservatives, what Karger and Stoesz refer to as cultural conservatives, find government useful in propelling an agenda of legislating morality (Karger & Stoesz, 2006, p. 11). This concept is foreign to Classic Conservatism, which views issues of morality as ones that local municipalities can better address because they are more directly guided by the will of the people.

Free Will

            It is helpful for me to cope with conflict when it is observed through the lens of free will, that is, the ability for two people to view the same fact and interpret it two completely different ways. Free will, understanding, and grace are often in too short of supply when discussing ideology. Consider the sensitive topic of gay-rights and homosexual unions. When liberalism is applied, a social justice crisis is staring the nation down the throat. An entire people group is being excluded from common functions of society, specifically the freedom to marry whom one chooses. Coupled with a right-wing legislative agenda to amend the American Constitution, thus narrowing the definition of marriage to terms that would further alienate this segment of our society, and a person with a liberal leaning is outraged. To solve the issue, liberals could advocate for social tolerance and acceptance of the homosexual community. Liberals would also look for application of full faith and credit where every state government would honor homosexual unions and eventually society would absorb this new reality into its daily function.

            When conservatism is applied to the very same issue, we are confronted with adebasement of moral order. Tradition and core values are challenged and conservatives are outraged at the irresponsible usage of judicial review when leftist judges legislate from the bench, accosting societies previously held boundaries. Classic Conservatism would strive for sustaining the moral order thus honoring tradition. Classic Conservatism would not seek to use the governmental system to place restrictions the people; rather it would look to each individual state to decide if they will honor homosexual unions,empowering the people.

Karger,H. J., & Stoesz, D. (2006). American social welfare policy: A pluralist approach. (5^th ed.). NY:Longman.