Resolving the Conservatism vs. Liberalism Conflict

Author submitted essay | 7/10/2025 | Mark Bard

[equaviator]

We don't call it common sense for nothing, so where do conservatives and liberals agree on what common sense is?

[brent13a]

A good start would be to seize the term “liberal” back from the Fabian Socialist asshats that stole it in the first place. Classical liberalism is constitutional conservatism. Democrats are ILLIBERALS. It’s that simple.

[Alberta's Child]

Interesting and in-depth piece here.

[KrisKrinkle]

You write a lot about “rights”. Define the term right.

[KrisKrinkle]

“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?

[spel_grammer_an_punct_polise]

“Resolving the Conservatism vs. Liberalism Conflict”

Can you see the word, “Liberal,” in the word, “Liberalism?” That is all you need to know.

[Phlyer]

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.

[Migraine]

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.

[glennaro]

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.

[Phlyer]

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.

[wafflehouse]

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

[Wuli]

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.

[Phlyer]

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.

[griswold3]

👍👍

[aquila48]

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

[Migraine]

I think your rationale is fine. It’s very pure.

[Chicory]

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

[Phlyer]

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.

[Chicory]

You have given me a great deal to think about. I had read quickly some years ago that rights stem from our obligations — unfortunately I didn’t keep track of where I read it — so I have been mulling over that idea, and your thoughts give me more to consider. Thanks!