Many individuals insist guns should be outlawed because they result in violence, murder and lowered inhibition against crime. In response, some say, “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people!” Although commonly dismissed as cliche, this response is quite revealing. It may not sway anyone’s thinking on the question of gun ownership or elevate the quality of public debate, but from a larger perspective, it underscores the difference between two major groups of social and political thinkers dominating every public controversial debate. I’m referring to, of course, “conservatives” and “liberals.” Alright, I admit the labels conservative and liberal are hackneyed and often doled out with indiscretion. But they aren’t empty in the strictest sense. They convey something. Perhaps the meanings of the words in modern usage have nothing whatsoever to do with their literal definitions, but they do communicate certain principles and presumptions. And any attempt to escape political categorization is opposed by media hounds eager to separate the wheat from the chaff with Biblical precision.
If we can accept political labels and generalizations as meaningful representations of reality, obedient to the demands of likelihood and reason, then we can come to terms with the essential difference between conservatives and liberals. Conservatives parade the ideals of limited government spending and reduced bureaucracy. Liberals religiously affirm the power of social institutions to curb human deviance. Conservatives pride themselves on the safety and security of an unchallengeable Constitution, while liberals believe in the power of pure democracy to wrench mankind from its self-imposed bondage. Conservatives believe people who have incontrovertibly committed themselves to evil must be restrained or killed. Liberals reject the strong arm of justice and insist on collective understanding and a strange, slippery form of tolerance.
Every major vein of liberal ideology relies on the assumption that human problems are the fault of conditions and society. Instead of closely tying AIDS to promiscuity and debauchery, overpriced medical treatment and poor education are blamed. Murder is considered simply the consequence of the protracted oppression in an unfair society. No allowance is made for personal responsibility. Conservatives understand that social class, upbringing and psychological disposition influence criminal activity, but liberals don’t understand that individuals are ultimately responsible for their actions and cannot live peaceably without a government sternly enforcing its laws.
Natural man is a puzzling creature. Unlike animals, he seems to have some strange fixation, if not obsession, with “morality.” Yet, while this morality is intended to instill him with higher ideals and a characteristically supernatural dignity, man seems less able to meet the lowest standards of morality than to achieve the greatest of technological advancements.
Unlike conservatives, liberals view morality as a crutch–an impediment to the greatness of mankind. Societies must adjust, governments must kneel before the people and humanity must learn the value of self-sacrifice; then man will be free from violence, greed, hatred and strife. It is this hope, this faith in the goodness of themselves, that keeps the wheels of liberalism turning. But time too keeps on turning, and time has proven to unravel bankrupt social theories.
Conservatives, like myself, accept the most blindingly obvious conditions of mankind, stand humbly before God and resourcefully seek to positively impact society. Liberals ignore man’s deficiencies and invent useless social theories to save themselves, ultimately placing upon man the curse of higher expectations and a weakened ability to assert any real “good” in society. Instead of finding innovative ways to move within the natural boundaries of humanity, they try to reshape and redefine reality itself. In short, conservatives believe God is God and man is man, while liberals arrogantly and foolishly think they are gods themselves.
Given sufficient strength, the American left would concede the fundamental principles of our nation in a Faustian gamble for the respect of our enemies. Their low-principled secular vision for America cannot survive its own slow seductive decadence or the anti-American aggression of rogue nations. It would create a vacuum ready to absorb Islamic fundamentalism or some other form of enslaving oppressive rule. Conservatives have a duty to prevent liberalism from groping its ugly tentacles into the last reserves of American strength. Let us not forget that beyond the soft wooing speeches and disguised rhetoric lays a dangerous enemy, and its name is liberalism.
