Back in early 2008, I began writing a column “Yet Another Champion of the Constitution” and my second piece addressed two terms that I sometimes read in newspapers but due to my political apathy up through 2007, I did not really fully understand – the “liberals” of the Left, and the “conservatives” of the Right.  With a few minor edits from the original post, please take a read:

As basically a beginner in politics, one of the many things that are confusing to me is the very definition of liberal and conservative. Why, what can stump the walnut-sized brain of your author? Am I just being silly? Well, first some of the definitions from Google search that I most commonly associated with these terms -

Liberal

1) Tolerant of change; not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or tradition

2) Liberalism refers to a broad array of related doctrines, ideologies, philosophical views, and political traditions which hold that individual liberty is the primary political value

3) People who generally like to reform current conditions. Liberals are often referred to as the left wing.

Conservative

1) Resistant to change

2) Conservatism is a relativistic term used to describe political philosophies that favor traditional values, where “tradition” refers to religious, cultural, or nationally defined beliefs and customs. The term derives from the Latin, conservare, to conserve together; “to keep, guard, observe”.

3) People who generally like to uphold current conditions and oppose changes. Conservatives are often referred to as the right wing.

Soooooo…. if I live under a liberal government/society where liberty is the primary value, but I don’t want to change it, am I then a conservative? Why do the terms mix definitions of change/reform attitude with political values? Shouldn’t for one particular value, no matter what it is, have a choice between maintaining that value, changing the value in one direction, or changing it in yet another? Why do we have to insinuate that political Conservatives are stubborn-minded and resistant to change? Why do we have to insinuate that political Liberals are fickle-minded? Maybe these are just terms meant to confuse, divide and conquer.

I suggest more truthful terms – say when the government spends the money it procures from its people, on a certain issue you are either ‘anti-tax’ or ‘pro-benefits’ which the proponent-preferred alternatives to ‘pro-tax’ and ‘anti-benefits.’ For instance, if I am a Government proponent of say, give everyone Health Care, I can say I am ‘pro-benefit’ and my opponent is ‘anti-benefit’. If I am an opponent of Health Care, I can call myself ‘anti-tax’ and the opponent ‘pro-tax.’ This is name-calling, but at least its fair.

Perhaps this is the reason for – “That government is best which governs least.” Thomas Paine

Politically an individual should be defined in two ways – the true measure is of course is how they ACT and what they DO – politicians are on display for us and show this via their voting records, thoughts for new acts of legislature. And without real actions to judge, we are left to measure people by what they SAY and THINK. This is dangerous, since people can be fooled. Ideally in politics We the People start by giving some minor responsibility to an individual on what they SAY and THINK, and as they perform, We the People watch how they ACT and what they DO, and if they talk the talk but walk the walk (and we like it) we advance them.

“One of the best pieces of knowedge I’ve picked up from the Nolan Chart is the ‘disambiguation’ of political vocabulary. The problem with ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ is that our political parties reflect neither.  We have a ‘social liberal’ party and a ‘neo-conservative’ party.  (both of which are misnomers in and of themselves, but at least the generally accepted definitions are correct)

It puts a logical framework on what most of us knew subconsciously already.  Seeing those two dots so close together puts in simple terms why we are so apathetic.  Because honestly the choice between democrats and republicans is no choice at all.  All we needed to do was fix ther vocabulary.”

Another comment:

First, liberal and conservative are adjectives that are often misused as nouns. As nouns their meanings fall into the world of ‘jargon’ where people use words as symbols that can take on different meaning to different audiences.  This gives them power to convey meaning of their choice; whatever will advance their cause; regardless of the context.

This is where the misnomer of conservatives being anti-change or defenders of the status quo.  This is true for some individuals but not inherent in the concept of conservative government.

In a political context I always use these words with regard to the role of government.  For instance, I advocate the conservative use of the force of government.  Others will advocate a liberal use of the force of government.

The liberal use of government is aimed at control through homogenization, limiting choice and diminishing the power of the individual.

The conservative use of government is aimed at cooperative heterogeneity, freedom of choice and empowering the individual.  As you can see, these are not hall marks of caution or fear.  These are bold, fearless goals because the consequences are far less direct control over the citizens.

Pundits, jargon masters, talk show hosts and career politicians hate this simple direct use of the terms because it leaves them no wiggle room regarding their motives and the  consequences of their view of the role of government. Most Republican politicians today, are liberal in this context.”

http://towneforcongress.com/economy/an-hypocrisy-of-terms-liberal-and-conservative-1