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

Yeah, I know. It’s been a week and a half or so. I’ve been busy with other things. “Life” intrudes on “my life”.

Phlyer posted: A “right” is an ability that the government has the power to take from you, but not the authority.

Kriskrinkle responds: I find your definition of a right problematic. It seems to imply that the existence of an ability as a right depends on the existence of a government; that without a government there would be no rights.

That in turn seems to imply that if the members of an organized society formed, empowered, and authorized a government to take an ability “from you”, “you” would cease to have that ability as a right. (I suppose that’s kind of what happens when someone is sentenced to death or prison for a crime, but the someone initiated the string of events that led to the sentencing.)

It follows then, that if the members of an organized society formed, empowered and authorized a government to take the ability to live (for said government to kill them) of everyone born with blue eyes, those born with blue eyes wouldn’t have a right to life.

It also follows that if the members of two separately organized societies living on opposite sides of a river 8,000 years ago, each formed, empowered and authorized a government (in the form of a chief, war leader, tribal council, clan elders and so forth) to take the ability to live from those on the opposite side of the river, each side would not have the right to live in the eyes of the other, but would have the right to live in their own eyes.

Also, I find the term “the government” lacks clarity because there are multiple governments. I assume when most write “the government” they mean the Federal Government which ignores the existence of State, County, Municipal and other classes of “government” in the US, not to mention ignoring the existence of other governing bodies throughout the world and history.

I prefer the definition published by Samuel Johnson in his dictionary of the late 1700’s and of Noah Webster in his 1828 dictionary. They both defined a “right”, as a noun, as a “just claim”. Webster went on to say “Rights are natural, civil, political, religious, personal and public.”

As to “claim”, that would be an assertion that something is one’s due: “I have a natural (or unalienable) right to the life I was born with.”

As to “just”, that would mean in accord with morality or law (civil). “My claim to vote in local elections is “just” because I am of legal age and legal residency.” “My claim to the life I was born with is “just” because I have not breached the code of morality or law, for instance by murdering someone.”

Of course there are problems with this too because there are different codes of morality and differenct civil (legal) codes which might deny the right to life of everyone born with blue eyes, but I like it better as I can account for my natural rights without depending on the existence of a government. Also it allows for differentiation of rights which a lot of people seem to ignore.

Phlyer posted: 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.

Kriskrinkle responds: “The government” (to use your term) has the authority and the power to infringe, but not eliminate, the right to pursue happiness, as do individuals, depending on the form the pursuit takes. If an individual’s pursuit of happiness involves being a serial killer, “the government” has the power and authority to infringe on that pursuit, as do those about to be victims of the effort.

Similarly, “the government” has the power to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, but not to take it away since there are too many things that can be converted to arms.

Phlyer posted: 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.

Kriskrinkle responds: Under my definition as noted further above, the “rights” in question directly above are rights under law at least, but may lose their status as rights through changes in the law. As to such rights requiring taxation which puts people into involuntary servitude, maybe. In this country we have taxation with representation; taxes are voted on by our elected representatives (for whom we vote) or voted on directly by people. Usually, someone loses the vote, and if the side voting for a tax wins, the side voting against it might be said to be subject to involuntary servitude, except we have mostly conceded to abide by such votes so maybe the servitude is not involuntary. It might be argued that we are all in involuntary servitude since at some point our tax dollars are used for something we don’t want them used for.

Migraine posted: Conservatism and liberalism are diametrical opposites . . .

Phlyer responded: 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).

Kriskrinkle responds: Aside from anarchists, I believe most people would gladly use the power of government to enforce their own view of what is “right” and “wrong”, After all, “to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men“. If so, most people would be statists according to you. Of course there may be significant differences between people’s view of “right” and “wrong”,

Phlyer also responded: 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.

Kriskrinkle responds: From Article I Section 8 of the US Constitutiion: “The Congress shall have power:… To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations; To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (referring to Washington DC)… and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased… To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.” I believe that delegates at least some authority regarding control of murder to the Federal Government.

And I must be, in your view, an “authoritarian statist, “close in…spectrum to the leftists” because I want the federal government, within its delegated authority, to enforce my personal moral views regarding “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”, but then who doesn’t? A problem is that people’s views on those matters differ. But then we have elections and elected representatives to sort out those differences, though individuals might not like the outcome.

Chicory posted: I had read quickly some years ago that rights stem from our obligations…

Kriskrinkle responds: I would say that obligations, at least some of them, stem from the rights of others.

Kriskrinkle responds: I find your definition of a right problematic.

And your comment could stop there. I started with a definition of a "right" because it is important that we do (or do not) agree on that definition. All the rest of my comments proceed from my definition. All the rest of your comments proceed from disagreeing with my definition.

You are, of course, free to make your own definition. I did not find yours particularly compelling, but neither did you find mine compelling. I will maintain that mine is logical in the context of citizens and governments because it focuses on potentially enforceable limitations on "rights" by the government, rather than tropisms. It offers a way to judge candidates for office, or in a larger sense, systems of government and its controls (e.g. The Constitution).

I will agree with a couple of your comments, because in fact they align with my definitions.

That in turn seems to imply that if the members of an organized society formed, empowered, and authorized a government to take an ability “from you”, “you” would cease to have that ability as a right.

Exactly! In my definition, a 'right' that you have no ability to enforce is not a right at all. In the society you mentioned, if there are no limitations on what the society has the *authority* to take from you, then you have no rights. At a simplistic level, authority like that can take three forms. The society may be totalitarian in which the citizens have no enforceable rights. The society may collectively agree to some limitations on the authority of government (e.g. The Constitution), or each individual has to have the power to enforce his own rights, denying any others the authority to take them away (anarchy).

. . . would have the right to live in their own eyes.

Exactly, but the core of my definition is that "rights" which are unenforceable are no rights at all. Hence, if those on one side of the river have no ability to come across and kill you then you have the right not to be killed by them because they do not have the power to kill you (in your example because the "government" on your side of the river, which has the power but not the authority to take away your life won't let them). On the other hand, if the government on your side of the river does not have the power to stop them, then you have no right not to be killed because you can't stop them (unless you have the personal power to limit government authority).

“the government” lacks clarity because there are multiple governments.

Actually, that supports my position. An unspecific government includes all levels of government. If the federal government (which has the power) does not have the authority to take away one of my rights (e.g. the right to keep and bear arms), but the state has both the power and the authority to take away my arms, then I do not have the right to keep and bear arms. It doesn't matter who has the authority to take away my right. The fact any level of government has that authority means - in my definition - that I do not have that right (short, once again, of having enough personal power to resist their confiscation).

My final comment, because this message is about as long as yours, is that I find the word "just" to be way too fuzzy to be useful. Hitler thought he had a just "right" to seize lebensraum and eliminate inferior races. That didn't make it "just" in my mind. I did not find sufficient clarity in your definition of "just" to feel I had a better understanding of what should be considered a "right" than I had with my own definition. Mine is, at least, objectively defined. The power to do something can be evaluated objectively, and the authority to do something can be evaluated objectively (for all that those trying to take away someone's rights will find ways to make the objective into subjective evaluations, like using the word, "just.")

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.