I Wanna Be Your Friend

You’ve probably heard the saying (or a slightly altered version thereof) “The biggest difference between a conservative and a liberal is that a conservative doesn’t mind being called a conservative.” The phrase, almost always a product of a plucky GOP supporter with the bumper stickers to prove it, is usually accompanied with a toothy grin and luminous eyes. It’s almost as if the self-proclaimed and self-exalting “conservative” has found the cure to cancer or got to the bottom of the riddle known as Stonehenge. And in their minds, perhaps they have: Finally, once and for all, the great debate between conservatism and liberalism has been boiled down to its true essence! Centuries of rich ideology and humanistic thought melt away to reveal the basal core of political thought. And that truth, of course, reads is the simplest of terms: conservatives are unabashedly and righteously adroit while liberalism is bogged down in a world of self-loathing and uncertainty.

If such a phrase, however, is to be seen as truth, it must be examined as such. And this is where it gets the situation gets sticky. Because here, where catchphrase collides with empiricism, problems and inconsistencies boil and erupt. But before we delve into the trepidacious realm of dispelling myth and unmasking wishful thinking, it is important to first appraise and define the words conservative and liberal.

In its historical, American political context, a conservative is an individual who subscribes to conservatism or the political philosophy that calls for the limitation of federal government, supports fiscal responsibility, and opposes radical change to the various governmental and societal institutions. Conversely, American liberalism is generally in favor of a larger federal government, wide-reaching social mechanisms, and a cardinal belief in certain rights that are seen as unalienable.

Here, however, is where problems first arise: In the current political landscape, these lines are almost always blurred and smeared beyond recognition. This enigmatic indiscretion is especially applicable to those who fall into the conservative sect. When an individual describes themselves as a conservative, it can mean subscription to a plethora of different – and rarely overlapping- value sets. Americans pigeonhole themselves as conservatives for a variety of reasons: pro-life, in favor of staunch fiscal responsibility, belief in the intersection of Christian and political values, pro-gun, in favor of tough criminal legislation, anti-terrorist, anti-progressive, anti-immigration, pro-business, afraid of taxation, in favor of increased military spending, in favor of increased global trade and interventionist foreign policy, belief in natural law, belief in marriage between a man and a woman, disbelief in the conundrum of “situation,” anti-labor, a proponent of rural idealism…

Get the point? The list could go on forever. In fact, the Bush Administration seems to be making a conscious effort to transform the word “conservatism” into “utopian.” In the Administration’s eyes, conservatism is the great cure all: it can be evaluated and defined on an individual basis and diverse as it may be, all “conservatives” can gather under one flag. Obviously, such an outlook is preposterous: You can call a duck, a cow, and goat “barnyard animals” but that doesn’t mean that they are the same organism. Similarly, many so-called conservatives have nothing in common with either each other or the ruling party – outside of an artificially implemented hate and misunderstanding of those scandalous and un-American liberals. Simply put, the word “conservatism” little more than a convenient way to categorize a wide body of ideologies that, at least for the Bush Administration, pays tremendous political dividends.

On the other side of the coin, then, we have the liberals. While “conservatives” can be almost anything, “liberals” are distinct to the so-called conservative sect via 4 very specific characteristics: pro-choice, in favor of soft and over-indulgent social programs, their upper-crust elitism, and a generalized sense of shame for what America has become. Of course, liberalism is every bit as socially and ideologically dynamic as conservatism but, somewhere along the line, a large portion of the American public was fooled into thinking otherwise. It’s easy to dislike your political opponent when you paint them in the unfair light of conceited aloofness, baby killing, and unable to defend greater society against the evils of terrorism and domestic crime. Eventually, however, the fragmented and illusionary cohesion of the conservative voting sect will have be forced to turn onto itself and then the same slurs used an excuse to malign those on the left will be used to attack each other. It’s a short-sighted and worldview and it will end, as they say, in tears.

But there is a deeper and more disturbing problem with the current trend of fashionable pigeonholing among the American population. This is a country of doers and thinkers, people who believe that if you believe it, you can someday achieve it. We are a gigantic, diverse nation with voices that exceed standardization. We are a nation built on hard work, optimism, and – gasp - compromise. After all, the reason that both parties have such a long and storied history is because of their ability to each come up with dynamic answers to dynamic problems that are passed through the mechanisms of mutual concession and accommodation in order to produce a workable product that benefits as many citizens as possible. To lose that tradition in favor of black and white partisanship would be disastrous and politically distasteful.

Alone, the political doctrines (or in this case, the adapted political doctrines) of conservatism and liberalism will falter in their attempt to solve the myriad of problems that face the United States as it marches into an uncertain future. But together, they stand a chance. Each party has its admirable qualities and each party has gaping, Hindenburg-esqe problems. In a society that preaches majority rule with minority rights, compromise is essential. After all, how are we supposed to spread democracy around the world if we cannot secure it, in both theory and practicality, at home?