Resolving the Conservatism vs. Liberalism Conflict

The Hon. Speaker of the House Mike Johnson wrote “The Seven Core Principles of Conservatism.” The highly respected conservative thinker, Russell Kirk, authored the essay titled “Ten Conservative Principles.” And, an article titled “Defining the Principles of Conservatism” by the Hon. Kay Coles James is currently posted at The Heritage Foundation’s website.

While each of these writings is valid and insightful, they - and other well-reasoned listings of conservative principles - prompt a critically important question until now unanswered. Why do true conservatives adhere to their similar core beliefs?

As examples, why do conservatives tend to share similar positions on such seemingly unrelated social elements as late-term abortions, family commitments, federal debt, illegal immigration, national defense, and our vulgar popular culture?

The solution to this puzzle is best understood by viewing conservatism as a morality rather than as some sort of esoteric ideology. Specifically,

~ Conservatism is the love thy neighbor as thyself (LTN) morality applied to the societal level. ~

Using this moral perspective, the reason that conservatives support similar positions on the diverse issues listed above is easily explained. It is simply because conservatives share a LTN morality that causes them to perceive the moral implications of each controversial social element in a similar way.

LTN morality is the universal and common-sense moral principle that governs every religious and philosophical movement. This golden rule simply obligates everyone to always treat other people the same way that they believe other people are morally obligated to treat them.

True conservatives perceive themselves and each of their fellow citizens as sovereign (meaning autonomous} and sacred (having incalculable value) beings who are morally endowed with certain LTN rights.

Given this perception, conservatives believe that every citizen morally deserves to be treated in such a way that never violates any of their LTN rights.

Although there would surely be differences in emphasis, organization, and detail, the LTN rights identified by most sane Americans would include everyone’s natural rights along with their self-evident rights to dignity and morality.

1. Natural Rights (as cited in the Declaration):: A. Equality B. Life C. Liberty D. Pursuit of Happiness (includes Property and Contracting rights)

2. Human Dignity Rights:: A. Respectful Treatment (includes Privacy) B. Physical Well-Being (includes Health Care Contracting) C. Honest Dealings D. Compassionate Care (whenever an individual is in need) E. Appreciation/Loyalty F. Vigilant Protection (citizens are obligated to protect each other’s rights)

3. Moral Existence Rights:: A. Morally Good Society (to exist therein) B. Morally Decent Person (to be nurtured into becoming) C. Morally Decent Others (to coexist with)

“A democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.” Benjamin Franklin

The morally good democracy that every true American conservative strives to support is one in which every citizen’s LTN rights are never violated.

Such violations occur whenever an individual pursues some sort of pleasurable gratification for himself or herself by doing something that violates the LTN rights of an innocent citizen(s).

There are two ways by which a citizen’s LTN rights are violated: a personal violation or a social element violation.

As an example of personal violation, suppose that a wolf and a lamb are members of the same society. One day, out of the blue, the wolf pounces on the much weaker lamb and devours the poor creature for lunch. The wolf surely enjoyed his gratifying pleasure and the innocent lamb’s right to life was certainly violated.

With a social element violation, in pursuit of gratifying pleasures, a coalition of citizens support an immoral social element even though that element violates the LTN rights of the innocent.

Suppose in a democracy consisting of two wolves and one lamb, a referendum on what to have for lunch is held. In that situation, a social element violation occurs when the wolves - as an entitled majority - vote to support an immoral social element titled the Federal Lamb Slaughtering Agency.

A social element (SE) is any component of society that impacts the LTN rights of citizens - either protecting those rights or violating them. Without exception, all conservative vs. liberal conflicts focus on the purpose and authority of America’s social elements.

Although conservatives do not agree on every political and social SE, the predominant conservative position on every one is intended to protect the LTN rights of their fellow citizens.

Oppose Late-Term Abortions / Life and Compassionate Care rights of viable unborn children.

Oppose Affirmative Action Quotas / Equality and Respectful Treatment rights of discriminated against Americans.

Support Reasonable Deterrent Criminal Justice / Life, Pursuit, Physical Well-Being, and Vigilant Protection rights of innocent children, women, and men.

Support Deterrent Defense Spending / Vigilant Protection and Morally Good Society rights of present Americans and our posterity.

Support Reasonable Election Safeguards / Equality, Honest Dealings, and Morally Good Society rights of every American voter.

Oppose Unnecessary Environmental Regulations / Liberty and Pursuit (including Property and Contracting) rights of individuals, businesses, and employees.

Support Family and Marriage Commitments / Morally Decent Person rights of children (usually better encouraged within committed two-parent marriages) and the Morally Decent Others rights of all citizens.

Oppose Unnecessary Federal Debt / Pursuit (Property) rights of future generations to use their earnings for their Physical Well-being and to provide Compassionate Care to their needy.

Support Free Enterprise / Liberty and Pursuit rights of Americans especially business owners, their employees, and consumers.

Oppose Wasteful Government Bureaucracies / Liberty, Pursuit and Honest Dealings rights of taxpayers and the Compassionate Care rights of current and future deserving citizens.

Oppose Unreasonable Gun Controls / Life, Pursuit, Physical Well-being, and Vigilant Protection rights of innocent Americans.

Oppose Government Controlled Health Care / Liberty, Pursuit, Respectful Treatment (including Privacy), and Compassionate Care rights of all Americans.

Oppose Unfair Labor Union Regulations / Liberty and Pursuit (Contracting) rights of business owners, employees, and potential employees.

Oppose Illegal Immigration / Honest Dealings rights of Americans and legal immigration applicants (especially women, the elderly, and people with disabilities) and the Compassionate Care rights of our deserving citizens.

Support Patriotism / Appreciation/Loyalty rights of our soldiers and forebears for the sacrifices made to provide us with a Morally Good Society.

Oppose Excessive Vulgarity in Popular Culture / Morally Decent Person rights of every child and the Respectful Treatment and Vigilant Protection rights of citizens (especially those of girls and women).

Oppose Racism / Equality and Respectful Treatment rights of all Americans (violated by such liberal theories as Woke and CRT).

Oppose Reparations / Equality, Respectful Treatment, and Pursuit (Property) rights of present and future Americans.

Oppose Punitive Taxation / Pursuit, Respectful Treatment, and Honest Dealings rights of non-impoverished citizens, (Conservatives support taxation that is fair and progressive, but not based on envy or unjust confiscation.)

Oppose our Exploitative Welfare System / Respectful Treatment and Compassionate Care rights of deserving citizens (that would be protected by an efficient welfare system that provides essentials while encouraging self-sufficiency) and the Pursuit (Property) rights of all present and future taxpayers.

(Note: Since liberals oppose the conservative position on each SE found above, it follows that their liberal positions violate the respective LTN rights listed.)

If liberals agree that the only criterion that Americans should use to settle our social element conflicts is which position best protects the LTN rights of the innocent, then true conservatives are confident all our disagreements will be quickly resolved.

For any social element(s) (whether or not listed above), will any liberal - who believes they can -please present a convincing argument(s) that their position(s) better protects the LTN rights of innocent citizens?

True conservatives will seriously evaluate those liberal arguments. And, should they conclude that the liberal position on any SE better protects the LTN rights of any Americans, they will fulfill their moral obligation by supporting the liberal position.

Otherwise, for any SE for which liberals are unable to present an honest moral rebuttal, conservatives trust that liberals will fulfill their moral obligation to support the conservative “love thy neighbor as thyself” position.

His book, “Obligated Conservatism vs. Entitled Liberalism: America’s Moral Divide,” explains, in detail, that the love thy neighbor morality is the basis of Obligated Conservatism.

His booklet titled “The Entitled Liberal Coalition Theory” details the rationalization that justifies and the selfish gratifications that motivate the behaviors of entitled liberals. For a free copy of this booklet, please email mbardpax@outlook.com

“One day, out of the blue, the wolf pounces on the much weaker lamb and devours the poor creature for lunch. The wolf surely enjoyed his gratifying pleasure and the innocent lamb’s right to life was certainly violated. “

What about the wolf’s right to life? The wolf was created/born a carnivore, it eats meat to maintain its life.

So we have the wolf’s right to life against the lambs right to life. How do you resolve this conflict of rights?

A good start would be to seize the term “liberal” back . . .

Excellent point. I never call the statists "liberal" which in its most basic intent is to let individuals make their own decisions instead of having government decide for each of us.

Once upon a time, that was a truly 'radical' philosophy quite different from the totalitarian (even if beneficient) rule of the elite.

It is, at its core, a respect of our fellow citizens, and I wish we could return to that.

I believe I can nut shell this essay: Conservatives. Believe in accountability
Liberals believe in accountability for thee, but not for me.
Liberals believe that we are just matter and energy; we just happened. You know. The science? Think Charles Darwin/Carl Sagan/Dr. Fauci/Climate change alarmism.
Liberals are never at fault. That is because they are victims. Think Sigmund Freud in theory and George Floyd in practice.
Conservatives are oppressors; liberals are oppressed. See Karl Marx.
Conservatism and liberalism are diametrical opposites and utterly irreconcilable. Liberals DO want to “have that conversation”, but they want to do all the talking.
That is all.

This conflict is not between Conservatives and Liberals, it's between Conservatives and Leftists. Although true Liberals often vote with Leftists because they're cowards, Leftism is in direct conflict with Liberal values. Many people continue to use the terms "Leftism" (or the more-appropriate term "Progressive-ism, as in "cancer is a Progressive disease") and "Liberalism" as synonyms, but they are actually quite different.

Define the term right.

That's a good point, and while I'm not the author of the article, I will give one.

A "right" is an ability that the government has the power to take from you, but not the authority. A lot of people who talk about natural 'rights' are often talking about tropisms that are so inherent that the government can do nothing about even if it wanted to. You can 'pursue' happiness even in the darkest gulag. You might not make much progress toward it, but you can 'pursue' it. These may indeed be natual 'rights' but they are not useful in determining what sort of government we want to have because no government choice we make will have any effect on them.

The problem is that they then try to conflate 'rights' that the government can take away as being equivalent to those over which the government has no actual power. Thus, the 'right' to keep and bear arms is different from the 'right' to pursue happiness.

On the other hand, the government has the inherent "power" to take away our "right" to bear arms, but not the authority to do so. This category of rights is one that we can fight for, and work to keep the government from infringing.

There is a third category that is called a 'right' but which is not. These are "rights" that inherently require involuntary servitude from another. Thus, the 'right' to health care requires either that the doctors, nurses, X-ray technicians, etc. provide their skill and expertise for free (as well as facilities), or others must provide from the fruits of their own labors through taxation which means that they are in involuntary servitude for at least part of their working lives.

So, once again, a "right" is an ability which the government has the power to take from you, but not the authority.

i think it boils down to there are two kinds of people

people who want to be left alone and are willing to leave others alone
people who want to make their own decisions about most things
people who are more independent

people who have a high need for social conformity
people who need a higher authority to defer to
people who want to be told what to do
people who are more co-dependent

i think everything else either follows from these differences or are just political footballs

The Marxists/Socialists in the U.S. long ago (1938) resolved that they could quit electioneering as Marxists/Socialists, because the squishy “Liberals” would implement their program for them. And, the “Liberals” lived up to the expectations of the Marxists/Socialists, but by bit, decade by decade.

Conservatism and liberalism are diametrical opposites . . .

Actually, I disagree. There are some who are considered 'conservative' who would gladly use the power to government to enforce their own personal view of what is 'right' and 'wrong.' That is inherently the same as the statists, with only differences in exactly which views each hold (which in turn change with time).

The true spectrum of political thought is from statism / fascism / socialism / communism / authoritariansim where the "collective" (elites in government) make all decisions at one extreme and anarchism where the individual makes all decisions.

The challenge in human society has been to find an effective balance between these extremes. The US Constitution defines a wonderful balance, far superior to the system we live under today.

Note: I happen to agree morally with some positions that I don't think the government should have the authority to decide for us. For example, I think abortion is murder and should be prohibited. But to use the force of government to enforce that view - while it is often a devout wish of "conservatives" - is not meaningfully distinct from leftists view of using government to enforce their own views.

By the way, even controlling murder is not an authority delegated to the federal government. It's for the States to decide, just as the most recent Supreme Court decision leaves the control of abortion. If you want (speaking generically, if "one" wants) the federal government to enforce your personal moral views, then you are an authoritarian statist, close in your spectrum to the leftists.

Way too many words!

The nature of conservatism vs radicalism (which is what we really mean by “liberals”, “leftists” and “progressives”) is captured very concisely in the poem “The Gods of the Copybook Headings” by Kipling.

Check it out.

https://allpoetry.com/The-Gods-of-the-Copybook-Headings

How is it that we know the government does not have the authority to take something away?

That's a good question, because it is based on the question: How do we enforce that lack of authority? The authority (and lack of it in appropriate areas) of the federal government is explicit in the US Constitution. It is deeply troubling that a US Supreme Court nominee (Robert Bork) who was considered too "conservative" to serve on the court said that the 10th Amendment (which establishes an extremely important "right") was "essentially moot." That is a desperately bad situation. Thankfully Trump has named some fairly "strict constructionist" judges to the Supreme Court who are working our way - slowly - back to what the Constitution says.

In the larger sense, as a representative republic, "We, the People have the ultimate authority, both with our ballots and in 'voting with our feet' to move to areas that do observe limits on the authority of government to infringe on our "rights." In that way, "We, the People" can make it clear what authority the government should have.

That, in turn, begs the question: On what basis should "We, the People" decide what authority the government should have? I'm okay with the idea that some call "natural" rights as a basis for that decision. Personally, I am a strict construction Constitutionalist. I think that lays out an excellent model for what authority the government should have. We're so far from that model that before I advocate for additional "rights" I would prefer to move back to what the Constitution says and see how that works out. It may be that we don't need any more limits on government authority that the Constitution already identifies.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.