The United States Was Born Liberal

[AVG-JOE]

"The United States, as the political scientist Louis Hartz argued in the 1950s, was born liberal. We fought for our independence against Great Britain and the conservatism that flourished there. In Europe, a conservative was someone who defended the traditions of the monarchy, justified the privileges of the nobility, and welcomed the intervention of a state-affiliated clergy in politics. But all those things would be tossed out by the revolutionaries who led the war for independence and then wrote the Constitution. We chose to have an elected president, not an anointed monarch. Our Constitution prohibited the granting of titles of nobility. We separated church and state."

Quote from: "Why Conservatives Can't Govern" by Alan Wolfe (Emphasis mine)

The quote in context makes logical sense to me... Elite power base, Church influence in politics, Wealth to the wealthy - almost makes one wish we had another new world to conquer in order to establish yet another more perfect union...

-Joe

 

[jillian]

True enough.... though I actually thought we were born radical.

The tories would have called them "moonbats".

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I don't think being revolutionary constitutes being liberal. Thomas Jefferson certainly can't be considered a liberal since he favored a limited federal government.

 

[Navy1960]

Conserve

1: to keep in a safe or sound state <he conserved his inheritance> ; especially : to avoid wasteful or destructive use of <conserve natural resources>

I have a different take on it, that to be conservative is to keep in a sound and safe state as it applies to the Federal Govt. To avoid wastefulness and destructive use of resources both natural ones as well as fiscal ones. It seems a rather simple concept actually as it applies to the Federal Govt.. and when applied to the Founders of this nation it is easily seen that they were indeed conservative more so than liberal. In fact I will submit that a person that is an environmentalist is actually a conservative if you get right down to it. The only thing that makes them liberal is that they wish to use destructive and wasteful Govt. resources to conserve environmental ones. The problem here is that the definition of someone that believes that the Federal Govt. has specific duties and that to conserve resources, monetary ones, and keeping a strong military and limiting those powers and giving powers not deemed in the constitution to the states has been lost. A true conservative is someone that wants to limit the power of Federal Govt. to those powers given in the constitution and conserve those resources that the Federal Govt. has to the benefit of us all. In conclusion the recent versions of conservatives or so called ones that are in Govt. now are not conservative by any stretch of the imagination and are not by definition what the Founders would have been conservative.

 

[sealybobo]

I don't think being revolutionary constitutes being liberal. Thomas Jefferson certainly can't be considered a liberal since he favored a limited federal government.

Yes he can. Back then, he was liberal.

The Conservatives back then wanted to stay a part of England.

Just like you conservatives got more conservative when you found out Clinton liked BJ's.

And you Conservatives should have spoke up before 2006. You defended everything Bush did for 6-7 years. Now you want to distance yourselves from him? Yet you won't let us distance ourselves from Carter?

 

[CSM]

I am not so sure that the terms "liberal" and "conservative" as we define them today really apply.

 

[Steerpike]

Yeah...they may have been liberal within the context of the day, but if you took the views of the "liberals" at the founding of the country and implemented them all today, I think the conservatives of today would be far happier about it than the liberals of today.

 

[del]

I am not so sure that the terms "liberal" and "conservative" as we define them today really apply.

bingo. they don't apply at all. to be liberal in the 18th century was to deny the divine right of kings and to assert the rights of the individual to self governance and religious choice.

i think the agenda has shifted a tad 200+ years later.

 

[sealybobo]

Yeah...they may have been liberal within the context of the day, but if you took the views of the "liberals" at the founding of the country and implemented them all today, I think the conservatives of today would be far happier about it than the liberals of today.

I think our movement is better defined as Progressive.

Conservs want to stay with the status quo and not change.

Progressives are always thinking ahead.

Conservatives sit and think. But mostly they just sit.

 

[jillian]

I am not so sure that the terms "liberal" and "conservative" as we define them today really apply.

Of course they are... conservatives want to maintain the status quo. Liberals want to move society forward. It's one of the reasons I said the radical right wasn't ever conservative.

 

[CSM]

bingo. they don't apply at all. to be liberal in the 18th century was to deny the divine right of kings and to assert the rights of the individual to self governance and religious choice.

i think the agenda has shifted a tad 200+ years later.

Coincidently, I watched a program on History Channel last night regarding the Revolutionary period. One of the things that struck me was that the program pointed out that the colonists in Massachessetts had lived under British rule for over 150 years. It appears that things got nasty when the Crown decided to start taxing the heck out of the colonists. Of course, the propaganda machine run by the "rebels" cranked out a lot of stuff that became popular belief but essentially the revolution was as much about economics as it was any other issue.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Conserve

1: to keep in a safe or sound state <he conserved his inheritance> ; especially : to avoid wasteful or destructive use of <conserve natural resources>

I have a different take on it, that to be conservative is to keep in a sound and safe state as it applies to the Federal Govt. To avoid wastefulness and destructive use of resources both natural ones as well as fiscal ones. It seems a rather simple concept actually as it applies to the Federal Govt.. and when applied to the Founders of this nation it is easily seen that they were indeed conservative more so than liberal. In fact I will submit that a person that is an environmentalist is actually a conservative if you get right down to it. The only thing that makes them liberal is that they wish to use destructive and wasteful Govt. resources to conserve environmental ones. The problem here is that the definition of someone that believes that the Federal Govt. has specific duties and that to conserve resources, monetary ones, and keeping a strong military and limiting those powers and giving powers not deemed in the constitution to the states has been lost. A true conservative is someone that wants to limit the power of Federal Govt. to those powers given in the constitution and conserve those resources that the Federal Govt. has to the benefit of us all. In conclusion the recent versions of conservatives or so called ones that are in Govt. now are not conservative by any stretch of the imagination and are not by definition what the Founders would have been conservative.

Your definitions of 'conservative', while valid, are outside the context of the article which describe conservatives as they govern, which few will deny are more about promoting God, restricting life-style freedoms, and keeping the wealthy elite wealthy.

I only wish that American Conservatism were as you describe... Kind of like wishing that Soviet Communism was as Karl Marxx described, instead of what it was. If wishes were horses, dreamers would ride.

-Joe

 

[Andrew2382]

yes, cause nothing says conservative and limited goverment then having a monarchy like they had in England at the time

 

[Bern80]

I think our movement is better defined as Progressive.

Conservs want to stay with the status quo and not change.

Progressives are always thinking ahead.

Conservatives sit and think. But mostly they just sit.

More untruer words were never spoken. Especially with regards to the last statement. Between liberals and conservatives as defined today, liberals by far do the most talking. That is why I think so many people believe that liberalism is the way of the land, it's simply because you're louder, not because you actually accomplish all that much.

There are a great plenty changes that conservatives want. For starters a much simpler tax code. We want a change to a much more limited government.

I also really love the term Progressive given its root of 'progress'. I'm not really sure how any liberal position can be defined as progress as most of them have the inherent flaw that keeps people from adapting/progressing given the overall mentality that people are entitled to things rather than haveing to actually work for things.

 

[Caligirl]

I think our movement is better defined as Progressive.

Conservs want to stay with the status quo and not change.

Progressives are always thinking ahead.

Conservatives sit and think. But mostly they just sit.

Conservatives want to preserve certain principles, which is different than 'staying with the status quo.' There is value in it. It could also be argued that preserving principles *is* 'thinking ahead.'

I think preserving certain work ethics, values, tradition, etc, is in the best interest of my children's future.

 

[Ravi]

bingo. they don't apply at all. to be liberal in the 18th century was to deny the divine right of kings and to assert the rights of the individual to self governance and religious choice.

i think the agenda has shifted a tad 200+ years later.

How? Most actual liberals still believe those things.

 

[Navy1960]

Your definitions of 'conservative', while valid, are outside the context of the article which describe conservatives as they govern, which few will deny are more about promoting God, restricting life-style freedoms, and keeping the wealthy elite wealthy.

I only wish that American Conservatism were as you describe... Kind of like wishing that Soviet Communism was as Karl Marxx described, instead of what it was. If wishes were horses, dreamers would ride.

-Joe

*laughs* well Joe I will keep my illusions as to how I define it I suppose and my apologies for straying somewhat from the original intent of the article. I do wish though that many in Govt. would adhere to principle or at the very least try to have some sense of ethics when it comes to the performance of their duties. I have always felt that when then Federal Govt. which does so on a daily basis and has so for years strays outside it's scope of power it is the very opposite of being a good steward of the constitution and more so flys in the face of what the true definition of the word "conserve" means. Our Govt. IMHO was founded on the principles of individual liberties and to limit those individual liberties based on a set personal moral principles is not in keeping with the word conservative and it's definition. So again, my apoligies all for going off topic..

 

[Caligirl]

I also really love the term Progressive given its root of 'progress'. I'm not really sure how any liberal position can be defined as progress as most of them have the inherent flaw that keeps people from adapting/progressing given the overall mentality that people are entitled to things rather than haveing to actually work for things.

Progressive issues are things like greener energy and gay rights, yes? (I definitely think greener energy would be progress.) I can't think of others off the top of my head....

How would those exemplify a mentality of people wanting "things rather than having to actually work for things"?

 

[Andrew2382]

I love how liberals think conservatives aren't for green energy. We want to explore all avenues of new energy including drilling our own supply. Libs are the ones that have their minds closed on ideas such as drilling.

Why not do everything?

 

[Caligirl]

Well, I'm not a liberal, but FTR actually I think both sides are for green energy, which makes me very happy.

but it is definitely a progressive issue, because it is progress. I think probably the left is more vocal about it as well than the right, but I could be wrong on that and would have to surf around to find numbers, something I don't feel like doing.

I bet Move-on is for green energy, for example.

But I also strongly believe Obama's point that there is more that unites us than divides us, something I keep trying to point out, so thank you for the opportunity.