The Misnomer Of Conservatism

Bruce Walker writes a brilliant analysis piece called "The Misnomer of Conservatism" that really explains a lot about both conservatives and the Left.  It begins like this:

As we "conservatives" thrash about trying to find who is a real conservative, we should also seek to find what we mean by conservative.  Conservatism, supposedly, is like a stool with three legs:  Fiscal, Social, and National Security.  Those three concerns are what identify those of us on the "Right."  Yet those of us who call ourselves conservatives see the silliness of that definition.  If there were no national security threat, would those "National Security" conservatives cease to be conservative?  No, of course not.  If the national debt and entitlements were not obscenely vast, would those "Fiscal" conservatives cease to be conservative?  Again, no.  If Roe v. Wade were overruled and Americans began returning to churches and synagogues, would "Social" conservatives whither away?  The very question seems absurd.

Why, then, do we have so many problems identifying what conservatism is in American politics?  There is an easy, though not simple, answer to that question:  What we have come to call "conservative" or the Right is a group of principles whose definitional names have been invented by those who hate those principles.

Walker goes on to talk about the origin of many of the terms we use nowadays to classify ourselves (right, left, liberal, progressive, etc.), and most of them have their roots in murderous movements like the French Revolution or thugs like Karl Marx.  Why does that matter?

Orwell presciently told us that language is the key to politics.  He also warned us that the intention of those who seek power was to drain meaning from words so that we could not cogently grasp the enemy or his weapons.  So we conservatives call ourselves "conservative" without any real notion of what that is supposed to mean.  We consider ourselves on the Right in some notional ideological spectrum, without really knowing what this spectrum is supposed to represent.

I don't know about you, but in this day and age where everything is being redefined in the light of political correctness, a shiver went down my spine when I read 'the intention of those who seek power was to drain meaning from words' so we couldn't recognize our enemies.  Does that sound as familiar to you as it does to me?  It should - it's happening all around us on a daily basis!  Walker then talks about Jefferson and Goldwater, two major political figures in history who are placed squarely on the 'right' despite not necessarily standing for everything we traditionally think of as being on the 'right'.  But, these men were confident enough to define themselves rather than let others define them.

What those of us who believe in the importance of liberty in human affairs, the vital goodness of America, the necessity of personal honesty in any healthy society, and the necessity of a Blessed Creator to any noble concept of life is to define ourselves and also to define our enemies.  We who have been called "conservative" (because we somehow have not accepted the Marxian idea of progress) are ultimately just people who believe in truth.  Many "conservatives" came to conservatism (whatever that is) because the Left is so permeated with lies and self-delusion (Exhibit A:  Global Warming.)

That's the key point: truth versus subjectivity.  My father has pointed out to me more than once a phenomenon he's noticed frequently throughout his lifetime - liberalism always eventually comes into contradiction with itself (for example, see some of my previous blogs about environmentalism here and here).  This is because it is not based on any certain set of absolute principles (i.e. TRUTH).  When there is no truth, a subjective feeling can be influenced in any direction, making any argument sound reasonable.  But, reasonableness can be applied to both sides of any argument, thus creating a paradox of who is more right in any given situation.  When right and wrong become subjective, how do you determine who is what?  Even a dash of truth, however, eliminates this paradox.  Anyway, moving on...

Walker finishes with one of the most sound descriptions of liberalism that I can recall reading in quite some time:

How do we define our enemies?  Some of us might like to call them "socialists," but that is using a vacuous Marxist term to describe a very real attitude. They do not really believe in anything, except power.  Why is Hillary running for president?  She wants power -- it is her turn.  Why did Democrats lust to regain Congress in 2006?  Power is the answer (have they even tried to do anything but harass President Bush?)

When the craving for power transcends every other human longing, then the importance of truth and honor shrinks to nothing.   The bondage of lies is just as great as any other bondage.  Our enemies seek to manacle us and allow, without always knowing it, themselves to be manacled as well.  So we could call them power addicts, but perhaps the purest term to describe them is as bondsmen in the party of pathological lies.

This is a perfect summary of the liberal Left today.  They have become so enraged at the fact that they fell out of power in the 1990's that they can't even recognize truth when it hammers them in the face (i.e. Iraq).  They care about nothing other than regaining power, and will stop at nothing to achieve it, even if it means putting America at risk (i.e. the current FISA debacle).  Rush Limbaugh often draws the illustration that liberals look at political power as their birthright and that they deserve it; as such, when they lose elections (because we idiot peons voted wrong), they don't take it gracefully - they fight it, creating conspiracies that don't exist and bending/breaking rules without thought (i.e. Al Gore in 2000).

Did you catch what Walker said at the end there?  'When the craving for power transcends every other human longing, then the importance of truth and honor shrinks to nothing.'  If you've ever wondered how it is that these people can sleep at night despite lying, slandering, cheating, and destroying everyone and everything around them, or if you've ever asked yourself why there seem to be few -- if any -- moral or ethical standards on the Left, this is your answer.

There's my two cents.