A Study In Conservatism vs. Libertarianism
Deborah Venable
04/04/10
I’m
sure that many who take the quiz that is supposed to define one’s political
philosophy end up finding out (surprise, surprise) that they fit the mold of a
Libertarian. In fact, many who espouse
conservative beliefs find themselves wondering if they are not really libertarians
instead of conservatives. It is a much
easier task to separate the liberal and conservative philosophies than it is to
separate conservative from libertarian.
Conservatives,
such as myself, know that individualist stances trump collectivist ones in the
conservation of our Constitutional liberties.
I pretty much laid all this out in an article entitled, Individualism
vs. Collectivism
several years ago. It would seem that
many associated with the town hall push-backs and current tea parties may
actually have gotten the message. Try
as they may, collectivists have been unable to hang a singe label on these
people.
So,
here we are – a people who collectively and individually call ourselves
“Americans” in a battle for our country for the purpose of conserving our
heritage and our culture. It can’t be
done unless we each are willing to act alone – without any further defining
label than “American.” The reason? Our heritage and culture reflects individual
rights and responsibilities in an environment that supports individual
liberty.
Some
would hop on that statement as the very definition of a libertarian.
The
difference is far more complicated than that.
If I had my choice, I would rather try to coexist within a libertarian
framework of laws than within a nationalist, socialist, or liberal tyranny, I
know that my pursuit of happiness would be at jeopardy under either. If I adhere to a true libertarian point of
view, I am not conserving a heritage or culture built on accepting God’s laws
over man-made law. That is the real and
only difference.
Before
anyone balks at that, yes, I know there is such a thing as Christian
Libertarianism.
They
make many good points, such as this in-depth audio explanation of the most
misunderstood Bible passage, Render Unto Caesar. But
libertarians are a fascinating group. I
realize they are individuals with varying social and economic views, but it is
this variance that leaves me wondering how they would hope to conserve a
heritage and culture that many of them do not understand or believe in.
The
two major social issues that separate the conservative and the libertarian are
these:
Preserving
the sanctity of human life via outlawing abortion, and preserving the sanctity
of marriage and family via not accepting the legal equivalent of alternative
lifestyles.
True
libertarians refuse to condemn the practice of legal abortion or the onslaught
of accepting alternative sexual lifestyles as normal. They say it is because of the religion “taint” in both
stances. Above all, they do not wish to
be ruled by anything that smacks of a theocracy. Neither do I, but our heritage and culture were delivered to us
by Founders who adhered to God’s laws, whether or not libertarians see it that
way. These two things lay well outside
adherence to God’s laws.
Underlying
these two things we have the other glaring social issue differences of legalizing
such things as prostitution and deregulating illegal drug use. You may have noticed that liberalism – not
libertarianism is driving and benefiting from every victory in these areas. I have to ask, if living in an indecent
world hampers my pursuit of happiness, how can I condone such things?
I
do not agree with the continued blurring of right and wrong – decent and
indecent. While I agree that the “war
on drugs” has been mishandled, that there are far too many man-made laws on the
books, making far too many career criminals out of so-called drug offenders, I
know that this is simply because man-made law cannot trump God’s laws. The “just say no” approach of teaching
children that use of substances made to alter one’s very psyche and ability to
think clearly is wrong – thus abuse is punishable – and deals are out of the
question, would be far more appropriate.
Likewise the abuse of one’s sexual psyche and physical health via
prostitution and other recreational sexual choices is socially and nationally
damaging – and, here again, no deal making in the punishment.
The
color grey has literally overcome black and white on both issues because we are
not conserving our heritage and culture.
Perhaps
the libertarian view on most economic issues is the one I can most closely
agree with. They do tend to uphold
individual liberties vs. government infringements in most if not all
areas. Free trade agreements can get a
little sticky and should be approached carefully because of our heritage of
backing away from foreign entanglements.
This leaches over into all foreign policy, foreign wars, and our ability
to maintain a strong national defense.
But
I would ask the libertarian who says we have no right to “intervene” in foreign
affairs these questions:
Do
we have no right to reach out and help a neighbor who cries out to us?
Do
we have no right to militarily strengthen or weaken friends or foes languishing
in hopelessness or plundering in tyranny?
Do
we have no right to consider a victory to one over another a benefit to our
national security and stability?
The
fact that far too few American citizens who vote for our representatives in
government and our military commander-in-chief ever think about the effects
their decisions make on America’s stability and our foreign entanglements is
irresponsible to say the least. Only
after they disagree with some outcome do they deem it necessary to voice
concern and seek to split our national resolve. That is simply due to an ignorance of our heritage and culture.
Whether
we wish to accept it or not, America has had great influence over our foreign
neighbors since our beginning. Positive
influence greatly outweighs negative, but those not well versed in history
insist on bemoaning any American influence anywhere – even internal influence
on our own countrymen. Hence, the
continuing progressive onslaught to deny American exceptionalism in an attempt
to lead America back to the European model results in such garbage as
(enlightened Europeans have embraced nationalized healthcare, so Americans
should too) would send us backwards from our culture and heritage of individual
liberty.
While
most libertarians agree with that last statement, they may not be willing to
take it to the bank by defending it with God-given good sense over anything
else.
So
we must ask ourselves, what would happen if one day we elected a Ron Paul to
the presidency? While I think he would
make great inroads back through a swamp of bloated government rule over
individual liberties, and perhaps point us once again toward financial
prosperity, he might truly falter in any attempt to conserve our heritage and
culture through victory of right over wrong, law over lawlessness, and good
over evil. I’m not at all sure that
power would not corrupt such an individual.
The
thing that most concerns me about the Ron Pauls of America is that they feel
the need to latch on to whatever vehicle they consider affords them the most
power. Right now, for Ron Paul, that is
the Republican Party, but in the past he has tried to promote himself via the
Libertarian and Independent routes.
Part of the platform of the Republican Party is a strong national
defense, but he bemoans some of the very things that define that. He considered Reagan a sellout to big
government, which is hard to get your hands on for a true conservative.
The
bottom line is that conservatism is rooted in American heritage and culture
while libertarianism seeks the benefits without the judgment of right over
wrong. Fearing the Christian “taint” of
conservatism will never serve this nation or any other liberty loving people
with lasting justice against the progressive march toward totalitarianism. Accepting Christian sacrifice to preserve
good over evil, and not being afraid to define either, is absolutely necessary
to preserve the successful American model.