Great post Foxie - and I agree with parts and disagree with parts. I'm going to answer in sections
Okay. I've given it some thought. This is going to be pretty long winded, but will be the last one so long winded hopefully. But I want to get the whole concept out there.
Again I will be defining conservatism and liberalism as I believe they are most commonly understood and used in modern day American vernacular (minus the pejorative definitions some seem to insist attaching to them.)
Your comment, which I believe is sincere, was phrased as "Conservatism believes it protects people's right to "choice" - but it really only protects choices of those with enough power to be heard."
Pejoratively it could conversely be said that "Liberalism believes it protects people's right to "choice" - but it really only protects those the liberals want to be protected and would deny that choice to everybody else."
I actually agree. These two comments are what I see as the negative sides of each ideology and why balance is ultimately important (though each of us see's the balancing point in a different area)
Of course both conservatives and liberals will object to such definitions being applied to them. And there are of course wrong headed or unscrupulous people in both camps who will pervert the pure intent of both ideologies by pointing to anecdotal evidence. People who WANT to be pejorative will of course zero in on those anecdotal illustrations and hold them up as examples of all that liberals or conservatives are. And when that happens all constructive debate comes to a screeching halt.
So let's look at it without prejudice and try to get to the purest reality. The following is my understanding and belief only though I think there are others who share it.
Liberalism champions the cause of those they see as having less power and seeks to correct what liberalism considers unjust imbalances in personal prosperity. And it favors a central government given power to enforce those concepts as the liberal sees them.
Agree, but it's not just about "personal prosperity" - it's about injustice and inequality in a much broader sense.
For example:
a justice system that incarcerates black men at a much higher rate than white men (for the same crimes) and imposes the death penalty at a much higher rate
a system that disproportionately affects poor people's neighborhoods in regards to eminent domain, pollution and toxic dumps, and environmental degradation
a justice system that allows a rich man to get off when a poor man gets the death penalty
attempts to pervert the voting system to discourage or actively prevent certain groups from voting (not talking illegals)
To me, as a liberal - it's not just equality of personal prosperity but equality of opportunity and of voice. Everyone starts with a level playing field and then it's up to them to make the best of their choices.
So, just for purposes of illustration, with liberalism it is just and right that the greedy employer running the sweat shop and under paying his employees be brought to task by the government and forced to do right by the people who work for him. But in so doing the government has to create laws, rules, regulations, policy etc. that affects everybody--the greedy employer and the benevolent employer alike. And because that takes away the individual's ability to do the right thing in a given situation and/or use his/her resources as he/she sees fit, that will invariably have unintended negative consequences.
If we did not have laws imposing some regulation, then we would be entirely dependent on the good will of human nature. I think conservatives - when it comes to the market - have far more faith in human nature than liberals do. I can't speak for all liberals so I'll speak for me as a liberal. The problem I have here is that people's lives and well being are at the whim of other people's "choices".
If people "choose" to do the right thing, everything is great - but history is rife with examples that show people often don't, particularly when profit is concerned.
Where conservatism is about individual choice, liberalism is about individual dignity. Creation of economic systems after the Great Depression, that protected people's pensions and gave elderly people independence and dignity, that they did not have to be dependent on charity if the company they worked for changed their minds and killed their pensions. Or, dismantling of systems that enforced discrimmination of people based on what they were not how they acted.
Conservatism on the other hand leaves it up to the people themselves to govern themselves. With unalienable rights secured--i.e. the strictly limited government is given power to prohibit others from interfering with them--the conservative promotes a society that is satisfying and beneficial to those who form the social contract. And promotes the liberty for such society to be who and what it is. Conservatism believes people will get it wrong many times, but because the huge majority of people individually yearn for peace, justice, prosperity, happiness, they will learn from their mistakes and will almost always learn how to get it more right. Crummy employers will run crummy businesses. But it is their choice--the choice of people living under liberty--that will remedy that. No one-size-fits all government mandate can do it.
Where liberals fundamentally disagree with conservatives is here - the trust that human nature will ultimately prove benificent and history has born that out. Sure, many do choose to do good, but how many lives are conservatives willing to relegate to the garbage heap in the process? I'll add as well, that the larger and more centralized a conglomerate gets, the further it's management is removed from the effects it has on it's workers, it's neighborhoods and it's environment.
Why do so many lawsuits end up in settlements? One reason, is that often it's cheaper to settle then it is to change or pull a product. This is particularly true in the pharma industries and the mining industries. There is a price set on individual human life and as long as that price is affordable, the loss of life is acceptable. To liberal, no loss of life is acceptable when it is preventable.
So in the case of the greedy bad employer, so be it. He should have the right to run his business as he sees fit. But he won't be able to keep employees who find better jobs with better bosses. They will have the liberty to go elsewhere as fast as they can. He won't be able to produce the quality or effectiveness of the employer who has a contented work force who take pride in their work. And his business will invariably suffer as a consequence of that. And sooner or later, he will have to clean up his act or he won't be able to compete.
But again, I argue does that jive with reality and I would say look at history before there was much government regulation for an answer. You had company towns where there is only one employer or monopolies that fixed wages and conditions. For modern examples look at the mining industry - many wrack up violations or simply pay the fines rather than change the conditions. Enforcement is poor.
Historically - we had an absolute free market yet job conditions were atrocious for many, and a good many people lived, worked and died in abject poverty. You only have choice when there is something to choose besides unemployment.
The only involvement the government should have in that is regulation that would prevent the employer from exposing the people to hazardous substances or other dangers of which they would not reasonably be aware or creating unreasonable hazards for the employees without their knowledge.
As a liberal I go beyond that. The minimum wage has saved a lot of people, as has government regulation in pension plans etc. As well, government regulation in how industry affects the environment and discrimmination. My aunt is a chemist with a phd - she was educated at a time when many women were discriminated against in the sciences still - she had to fight to get into the PHD program and not because she wasn't qualified.
The bottom line: Liberalism would impose its values on everybody and, if it screws up or gets it wrong, it screws up everybody.
Conservatism can hold the same values but leaves it up to the states, local communities, and individuals to create an environment that reflects those values. If it gets it wrong it only screws it up for the people who adopted them and not everybody else.
Under liberalism, power is given government to do good. But power given to a government to do good is a government that also holds power to do bad. Conservatism does not see that as a reasonable risk.
Bottom line:
Conservatism allows for the creation of some of the highest highs and most wretched lows.
Liberalism moderates those lows, and allows the weakest and most vulnerable amongst us an equal voice and basic dignity that would otherwise be denied.
Conservatism believes in the goodness of individual human nature and the right of everyone to succeed or fail on their own merits and it's willing to accept the human cost in the process.
Liberalism distrusts the inate goodness of individual human nature and believes people must be encouraged to make the right choices through a system of carrots and sticks, it is unwilling to accept the human cost of other's choices.
Conservatism believes that everyone has the same opportunities.
Liberalism believes that while everyone has the same opportunities, they do not start off on a level playing field.
But there always contradictions and extremes in those philosophies.
On the side of liberals, it's the abortion issue and, as a woman with an almost fanatical fear that someone else might try to control my independence and choices - I'm on the fence. The unborn child is weak and vulnerable. As a liberal - we should speak for it's voice.
On the side of conservatives - the right of individual choice and consequences says we should speak for the right of the woman to choose.
And anyone who speaks for life should stand up for both the right of the unborn child to live and an end to capital punishment.
