This Gets Complicated
The defintion of conservative/liberal varies depending who you ask. When I was in college my school sponsored a debate between William F. Buckly (a conservative icon) and some liberal whose name I forgotten. The debate was on the merits of political conservatism versus liberalism. As in any debate, the debatees had to agree upon the defintions. The defintions the agreed upon were roughly as follows:
Conservatism:
The political philosophy that the people are better off under a smaller and less intrusive govt and that this govt should only provide a small number of services (military, courts, law enforcement). Some conservatives have arguments on what services the govt should be involved in. A pure conservative govt has low taxes because it has less overhead. Conservatives are more incline to let the free market work its magic than to interfere.
Liberalism:
The political philosophy that the people are better off under a larger and more active govt. A liberal govt has higher taxes because it has higher overhead since it provides more social services.
Conservative/Liberal Views
Govt Sponsored Job Training: Conserv=Against, Liberal For
Tax Subsidies to Home Owners: Conservative against, Liberal For (a pure conservative would argue that the govt should not show favortism to homeowners over renters)
Subsidies to an ailing domestic steel industry: Conservative against, Liberal for
Creating a Govt Sponsored Social Security Retirement Plan: Conservative against, Liberal for
Eliminating a Govt Department: Conservatives for, Liberals Against
As a general rule a person is 'liberal' if they want govt involvment and 'conservative' if they think the govt should not get involved. Obviously in a situation like a crime both conservatives and liberals want govt involvment to investigate, catch, and prosecute criminals. Having a military is something that most conservatives and liberals agree upon. It is the 'luxery' govt services where their fight begins.
To complicate this matter is very few people are purely conservative or purely liberal. Many are conservative on some issues and yet liberal on others. President Bush calls himself a "compassionate conservative" but he has spent tons of money on liberal issues (Farm Bill, Drug Perscription Plan, etc...). His plan to reduce govt involvement by partially privatizing social security would be considered a conservative move.
Some people claim the defintion of conservative is wanting to maintain the status quo.
This is a silly defintion. Say you want to keep social security. Since you are for maintaining the status quo you are 'conservative'. Lets say social security gets abolished and now you want to bring back social security. Now you are a 'liberal' and not a 'conservative' because your attacking the status quo. So you can be liberal one day and conservative the next day depending on what laws are passed.
Coservatism/liberalism are a set of political beliefs on the amount of govt involvement and has nothing to do with wanting or attacking the status quo.
A conservative judge is an originalist judge. That is to say they believe that the constitution is like the Rock of Gibraltar and its meaning in 1786(?) is the same as it should be today. An activist judge (liberal) believes in a 'creative' interpretation of the constitution. One judge admitted he consulted foreign law to help him make some of his decisions!!!??? A true originalist judge would find using foreign law to make a judicial decision for the USA to be a violation of their oath to protect and uphold the constitution of the USA. Their belief is that the constitution (and perhaps some supporting writings of the authors) is the only document they need to make their decison. Many conservatives accuse activist judges of ignoring the US Constitution (which their swore to uphold) and in effect legistlates from the bench bypassing the voters and congress which was elected by the voters. In practice their is little people can do to remove renegade judges. Thomas Jefferson tried it and impeach two judges (one was insane) but the political price he paid was too high and he gave up on this strategy...
Take the 1st amendment which gives the people the right to bare arms. Does this mean people sould have the right to own nuclear weapons? 200 years ago arms were muskets and swords. They never envisioned tanks, nuclear weapons, and chemical weapons. It is up to the judges to interpret what the original writers of the constitution meant by arms.
The constitution provides two functions:
1. It sets the rules/structure of the govt.
2. It restricts what the govt can do.
OFTEN, when many people think of a conservative judge you think of some fuddy-duddy yet in the California Medical Marijunana case is was conservative judges who voted that California had the power to decide on this issue (pro pot [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]). It was liberal judges (and one conservative) who voted to give the federal govt the power to regulate marijauna(anti-pot [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]).
|