The news viewing public often hear the terms conservative, liberal, left, and right in regards to politics. Often "ultra-" is added to the beginning of the term, but are these terms indicative of their definitions, or a bastardization of the meanings? Do they have any modern value?
Traditionally speaking, a conservative was one who attempted to preserve the ways things were, while a liberal attempted to increase the liberties of the individual. In more recent history, the "leftists" attempted to move governments towards an international communist government while the "right wing" attempted to increase the strength of a National government, particularly relative to international standing. But is the political spectrum linear, or circular in nature? Does a 3rd world tyrant (Iran) with goals of an international Caliphate (empire) and forces aligned against the "counter-revolutionaries" really meet the definitions of "ultra-conservative," or is their brand of international socialism and dictatorship, just a new name on an old concept, with a slight twist?
Is the underlying priniciple of the United States that we hold elections, or that Individual Citizens have God-given rights that no man, or government can take away? If it is the former, do the "elections" held in Iran, in Egypt, and in Zimbabwe make those countries equally liberal? And if it is the latter, is it a conservative or liberal ideal to preserve the Rights of Individuals from the government that derives from it?
I would argue that the political spectrum is circular, not linear in nature. I would argue that it is Individual Rights, the Bill of Rights, are a "liberal" ideology, that must be conserved. These are not rights granted by the government, but by God, and this is a very important point, even for Atheists protected by these rights. Whoever grants a "privilege" can take it away. Our Founding Fathers made clear that they did not grant Rights to the Individual, but rather that these Rights were granted by "Providence" and that the usurption of Government of those rights (by the King in England) were sufficient cause for rebellion and war to re-establish those rights.
Because the Founders did not grant but did Constitutionally protect those Rights, they made illegal and un-Constitutional the removal of those rights by any government that followed. They were at once, liberals and conservators of those liberties. And they immediately set out to create a strong Nation in International standards. While they warned against international entanglements, they also warned other Nations against domestic interference, and fought a second war against England in 1812 to preserve the Individual Freedoms and Liberties of American Citizens on the High Seas, which had been kidnapping American sailors at sea and "pressing" them into service of the King.
"What God giveth, let no man take away." "Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness" are "endowed by the Creator" to man and are "inalienable Rights" of the Citizen, for which the Citizenry establishes governments to protect. Today's "liberals" argue instead that the government grants these at its discretion. And if they don't like your "hate speech," then they argue you should be penalized by the government for your politically incorrect thoughts. They argue that "Freedom of Religion" means prohibition to practice religion. They argue that only the government should have the means to "protect" you, that your 2nd Amendment rights must be revoked, that you have no right to protect yourself and family from criminals or governments. They argue that the government has the right to open your email, monitor your movements, and summarily decide which Citizens should be executed in a Foreign country. They have instituted Federal Agencies, such as the IRS, with the power to arrest you and seize your property, without warrant or trial, with total disregard of the 5th Amendment.
The "left" argues that your rights must be nullified for "the greater good." You should pay (in taxes if necessary) $5000/year for "free" insurance, so they don't have to pay $10,000/year for their health ailments. They argue that because health services has grown to 1/6th of the National economy, as industry and farming declined, and costs increased, that they should be able to force you to pay "your fair share" of their costs. And because your taxed income becomes their costs, they believe they should be able to restrict your risky behavior. Since your "free" health care, is paid for out of the Treasury that pays for theirs, they believe they can illegalize large sugary drinks, and your intake of nicotine, and the numbing effects of alcohol. Since they believe they can force you to buy a product you may not want, and since your purchase of that product lowers their costs, they believe you shouldn't increase the costs to their part of it.
The "liberals" of the "left" have pursued a policy subordinating the individual to the state, of subjugating the people of the Nation, "for the greater good." These are anti-liberal policies, and it doesn't matter what letter fell behind the names of the framers, if those with the same letter today are working against the ideals of liberalism, of the God-given rights of the Individual over the government the Citizenry established, they cannot truly be called "liberals."
The "other party" isn't conservative or liberal either. They have chased the "moderate" label for so long that they may be opposed to the party in power, but they also are closer to the power hoarding reins of overbearing government than to the liberal ideals of the Founders. The primary difference is that they have less desire to grow the government at a rapid pace, while they have a consistent record of enjoying the fruits of more governmental power, rather than rolling it back, when they attain the reins of power, from those that have usurped it.
The "left" have become extremists, while the "right" has become left. There has been a steady erosion of the protections of Individual Rights over the period of decades It is insufficient, though a start, that this erosion be slowed. It is necessary that an overhaul of US legislation be instituted. Every paragraph of US Code, every line of the US Budget needs to be reviewed and revised with the question of "How is this authorized by the US Constitution?" "How does this protect the God-Given rights of the Individual over the government they established?"
As Thomas Jefferson said: "On every question of construction, [let us] carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
"General Welfare of the Nation," did not mean and does not mean providing a welfare check, or forcing the purchase of a product by individuals, but rather the conduct of the day to day government in a fiduciary manner. The sentence fragment itself is not found in an empowering article, but rather as a part of the mission statement of what the empowering articles would address.
"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes," does not infer any authority to force the purchase of any product on any individual. It is the authority to regulate, not control, nor own. The authority is limited to transactions between states, not individuals. It does not afford the power to strip the ownership of a poorly run company (GM, Chrysler, CitiBank, BoA) from the shareholders and sell it to foreigners (Chrysler-Fiat) or give it to another corporation (Chrysler-GM-UAW).
A return to the ideals of the Constitution does not mean entry into lawlessness, or the end of domestic government. The Constitution provides for the States to maintain domestic order. If the people of New York want to give 50% of their income to have a police officer on every corner watching their every move, they can elect politicians that will tax them enough to do so. If the people of Tennessee prefer small government with small schools, they can elect politicians to protect their incomes from government larceny, but Constitutionally, the people of New York cannot tax the people of Tennessee for their teachers and police officers and health insurance costs, not even if they send politicians to Washington to do so. And the people of California cannot require the people of Texas to institute textbooks in their schools teaching that their Sunday School teachers are lying.
Stumble It!
