It's been far too long since we've seen a thread proposing a new theory on what the definitions are of "liberal" and "conservative" (Force, where are you?!). So here goes another one.

A lot of the theories on the left-right spectrum assume dichotomy and consider people who are "in between" to be moderates or centrists. I think political ideology is more about reasoning than specific policy issues. Therefore when liberals concede to conservative points and vice versa, I don't think it's quite fair to say things like "That person is mor conservative than the average liberal."

So what if the primary definitions are something not mutually exclusive? If this is the case it is possible for someone to have many areas of agreement with the other side and still be a strong proponent of their own side. It would help us to see "moderates" or other in-betweeners- which most of us are- in a more rational and consistent lens rather than as a "pick and choose" lens.

My thought is that the primary difference is in priority. Liberals are for accountable government, conservatives for small government. These are both ideals that have a more or less positive feeling associated with them in American political culture. Most liberals will also like the idea of smaller government (assuming all needs are still met) and most conservatives will desire accountable government (provided it is limited).

The two ideas are mostly shared but there are times when they will come into conflict... and these are the times when there will be the most polarization. Sometimes accountable government requires that the government become larger in order to meet the demands of the population and ensure equal opportunity, equal representation, and to combat elements of society that disenfranchise some people from the government and the market. Sometimes small government requires that these things are not met.

Overall the conservative will focus on fiscal conservatism and the seperation of politics from life. The liberal will focus primarily on ensuring that the people remain close to politics and act as its watchdogs. This is where the real difference in philosophy falls. It is not a pessimist-optimist conflict, but rather an pessimist-pessimist/optimist-optimist one. Conservatives are pessimistic that government can never be controlled and optimistic that society can flourish fine if everyone just worries about their own lives. Liberals are pessimistic about disorganization leading to alienation and optimistic that the people can indeed monitor the government successfully if they stay organized and aware.

And then there is a lot of agreement. Both groups hate corruption, but have a different philosophical basis of where it comes from. Both like the idea that there is a wisdom in the people, but have different philosophical interpretations of that wisdom and how it is best used.

So the best way to achieve a temporary unity at any given time would be to focus on the intersections of the sometimes opposing values. Trimming inefficiency from government is probably the most common area (for ideologues... not necessarily for politicians and interest groups). And the highest areas of disagreement will be in areas where there is the most conflict between accountability and small government, such as where tax policies are concerned or programs to help the poor.

The main problem with my theory is that it does not explain social conservatism... I think that's because social conservatives are very issue-based rather than ideological and belong in a different ideological group, just as people who reject both accountability and small government would. Social conservatives seem to be for either accountable government or small government, depending on whether they see government intrusion or lapse laws as their major threat on an issue-by-issue and instance-by-instance basis.

__________________
"It's never over... BOY!"
The Tall Man, Phantasm III