Conservatives vs. Progressives

Not long ago , this Schultz character who's a Republican candidate for our state legislature (District 55) got my Irish up. He's a fellow Lutheran, but he opens every campaign pitch with a Evangelical Religious Right wing diatribe about gay marriage, abortion and teaching evolution and prayer in public schools, while getting government off our backs, out of the social welfare business, stop giving health care to illegal aliens etc. etc.

After a few weeks time to cool off and reflect, it occurs to me that we're both right (and wrong) but also both as sincere as can be. He thinks that it's up to churches and charities to help the poor and disaster victims- not the government, whereas I think it's up to the churches and parents to teach about God pleasing personal and moral choices and to encourage and model prayer- not the government.

However you feel about it, whether you think that government is a means to reform society in preparation of the second coming, like Conservative Evangelicals (Restorationists & Calvanists), or whether you think that government is an instrument for achieving social justice or continuing Jesus' ministry to the poor, the sick, the widows and the aliens, like the Liberation-Theology (AME & Liberal Catholics) you have to admit that the convergence of faith and politics can be very sticky.

You also have to admit that Americans don't know the meanings of our own words. But then, so much of language is semantics.

I thought what follows was a fascinating discussion:

"The labels are somewhat oxymoronic if not paradoxical.

Progressives, for example, like to conserve nature, and historical buildings.

Conservatives like to put up new and more modern buildings after demolishing the old.

Conservatives mostly want to retain historical morals and ways of being: against stem-cell research, and abortion, and gay marriage, and want to retain the Judeo-Christian heritage based on the Ten Commandments.

Progressives want to retain historical cultures, and want the Native Americans to remain Native Americans, and want African tribes to remain tribal, and want each culture to retain its originality, even to the point of not being quite able to stand for women's rights in places like Afghanistan.

Conservatives (like Reagan) wanted to mainstream American Indians, bringing them up to date with the latest developments. Bush wants to mainstream Muslim countries, pushing them into the Democratic 21st century, where dictators disappear, and voting appears, and women have universal rights.

I'm sure there are many other ways in which the two terms aren't exactly adequate to what the supposedly rival groups claim to actually want.

And of course the two great streams have lots of crosscurrents within them.

But every time I hear the terms I giggle to myself at how inadequate they are.

Conservatives actually want progress on certain fronts: they want universal human rights based on Lockean Christianity, and they want to build an aggressive economic sphere that looks to the future.

Progressives actually are quite conservative on certain fronts: they want to retain each culture's wisdom, based on a Unitarian belief that Diversity of ideas is a good thing, and must be retained, and they want to retain the look of the 19th century even in the midst of our business spheres so that some kind of link to our history remains."

Posted by Kirby Olson on http://lutheransurrealism.blogspot.com

Why even Republicans could be proud to be called 'Liberal'

Special thanks to "John L." of someplace our West for this week's cartoon idea- I'd be more specific, but the NSA and CIA are probably already listening to his phone calls.

If you see things from Dubbya's perspective, you'd also like 'New American Century,' and of course 'Mein Kampf.' Well, no actually you probably prefer burning books to reading them. In hind sight, I think I should've had 'W' say "heckuva game plan." He doesn't use words as big as "ingenious."

If on the other hand, you take the donkey's view, then may I also suggest 'It can't happen here,' by Sinclair Lewis and 'Fahrenheit 451' by Ray Bradbury (not to be confused with 'Fahrenheit 911' by Michael Moore).

And now, 'Ted's Column' for the Thursday, October 25, 2007 Mapleton PRESS

Main Entry: lib·er·al·ism

Pronunciation: \ˈli-b(ə-)rə-ˌli-zəm\

Function: noun

Date: 1819

1: the quality or state of being liberal2 aoften capitalized : a movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing intellectual liberty and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity b: a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard c: a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties dcapitalized : the principles and policies of a Liberal party

— lib·er·al·ist \-b(ə-)rə-list\ noun or adjective

— lib·er·al·is·tic \ˌli-b(ə-)rə-ˈlis-tik\ adjective

We had this one History professor in college that everyone seemed to revere. He was tall, gray, had a deep, warm timbered voice with a mild Missouri just barely Southern but more Midwestern accent, and a bone dry sense of humor.

Professor Grothaus was the head of the History department at Concordia College and a dead ringer for William H. Seward, namesake of the Nebraska town where Concordia was located. Seward, of course was Lincoln’s Secretary of State.

Students found Doctor Grothaus to be an enigma. History is a discipline that is forced to address politics and parties, controversies and competing interests. Grothaus never betrayed his personal convictions.

Grothaus had a mystical aura that transcended petty, mortal things like opinions, ideologies or political issues. He seemed to be omniscient. God like in his knowledge of anything anyone ever asked him about history, society, or the government of the United States. He was constantly and relentlessly recommending books and journal articles by historians and scientists to his devout students.

Someone once asked him how he managed to read so much, truly believing it wasn’t humanly possible. The rest of us were aghast at the impudence of such a question, as if Dr. Grothaus were mere human.

The professor replied matter-of-factly, “One finds time.”

One day, someone worked up the nerve to peek through the aura. They asked him point blank, “are you a Liberal or a Conservative?”

In characteristic wry and typically oblique delivery he answered, “Liberal, in the eighteenth century sense of the word.” Which of course left the class of 18-20 year olds no more enlightened than before. The aura remained.

18-20 year olds aren’t as bright as they like to think they are.

All it would’ve take is a glance at an old fashioned Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary to read “associated with ideals of individual especially economic freedom, greater individual participation in government, and constitutional, political, and administrative reforms designed to secure these objectives.” Wow, that sounds like a pretty GOOD thing to be, especially in the United States.

I know many a Republican who believes in encouraging citizens to participate, especially by voting and plenty of them who seek to reform government. Heck, “economic freedom” is one of their favorite mantras. Who’s more Liberal? Republicans or Democrats? How did George H. W. Bush manage to turn it into “the L-word” and make it seem so dirty back in the 1988 Presidential campaign?

Since then, many have taken to calling themselves “Progressive,” so as not to be stigmatized. A progressive is “one believing in moderate political change and especially social improvement by governmental action.” Teddy Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower, famous Republican Presidents were both progressives.

Last week I had some Seniors in my Web Design class asking for help on a Government assignment. Many of the questions dealt with the two major parties and sought to help students differentiate the major philosophical tenets of each. I have to admit, even during such polarized times as now, it was a bit like trying to separate tar from molasses in a mud pit.

A “Conservative,” according to Daniel Webster’s dictionary is someone “tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions… marked by moderation or caution.”

When you think about it, Ronald Reagan overturned a hundred years of sound economic theory, reversed a progressive tax structure that helped promote and maintain a robust middle class, and dismantled what had been an industrial and egalitarian society and replaced it with a consumer-based one that shamelessly benefited a new kind of aristocracy. Not very moderate, not very cautious.

Then we come to “Neo-Conservative.” What the heck does that mean anyway? Webster’s doesn’t help much.

First it says “a former liberal espousing political conservatism.” Lots of Democrats today hold up Barry “Mr. Conservative” Goldwater as a model of character, integrity, and public service. Guys like John Edwards and Barrack Obama have been talking an awful lot about God, family, rights and values. Are these guys “Neo-Conservatives?”

Another definition is “a conservative who advocates the assertive promotion of democracy.” I’m all for that. Let’s promote free elections in Egypt and Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Dubai, and China and Russia for that matter. The problem is the second half of the definition- “advocates the assertive promotion of democracy and United States national interest in international affairs including through military means.”

Ouch, see, “democracy” is a system where the citizens have choice and decision. You can’t coerce someone to be free (AKA; to have liberty and democracy) with military force. Asserting national interests through military means, is not conservative, moderate, or traditional at all. It’s aggressive, radical, un-democratic.