Conservativism versus Liberalism: The Comparison of Political Ideology

The comparison and contrast of the political ideology of major groups in the United States is both an interesting and, in some ways, a complicated task. The philosophies, in which they are rooted, whether it is Classical Liberalism or Classical Conservativism, are reactionary in the same way the original theories were hundreds of years before when Liberalism responded to the European tradition of religious conformity and ascribed status; and Conservativism reacted to Liberalism. Most of the organizations the author discusses fall well within the parameters of Conservativism or Liberalism; seldom do they split along the conservative–liberal lines when it comes to assumptions, values, or public policies.

Contemporary Reform Liberalism

The most important values within Contemporary Reform Liberalism, as in its predecessor, Classical Liberalism, are equality among people and the belief that humans are rational. There is a faith in progress and equality; but it needs to be supported by government, particularly through equal opportunity. Though they are still proponents of individuality, the sense of community has gained importance especially in a socioeconomic sphere primarily due to the rise of large corporations and suburban and urban distribution. There is a greater sense within Contemporary Reform Liberalism that government is no longer the greatest threat to its citizens, particularly because of the establishment of democracies and representation in government. More importantly, Reform Liberals view government as having the potential to serve its citizens through multi-lateral foreign policy; support the regulation of business for environmental protection and the protection of workers, as businesses should not make a profit at the expense of the safety or health of others; and they seke the government to provide social welfare and support of civil rights.

The Americans for Democratic Action

One of the oldest independent liberal lobbying organizations, The Americans for Democratic Action (ADA), founded in 1947 by both scholars and activists, encourage their 65,000 members to lobby through direct advocacy, coalition partnerships, and through the media “…for democratic and progressive values and ideals in American policy.” ADA focuses on issues that promote social and economic equality (About ADA). Members lobby against the death penalty and in favor of universal health care initiatives. When it comes to women’s rights issues, the organization supports legislation that “guarantees equal pay for equal work” (Economic Opportunity for Women) and opposes partial-birth abortions which fail to take into consideration the health and welfare of the mother (ADA Legislative Alert:Major Attack on Women’s Reproductive Rights.). Strongly opposed to proposed marriage amendments, it believes that the legislation relegates homosexuals to second-class citizen status, represents “fear and hatred,” and goes against the spirit of the Constitution, which is intended “to protect and expand the rights and protections of individuals.” Support for the argument against the amendment was supported by Chief Justice Earl Warren and from the usually conservative, former-Vice President, Dick Cheney. Warren’s decision with regard to anti-miscegenation laws was based on the recognition that marriage is “one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men…one of the basic civil rights of man.” Going against the Conservative norm, Cheney, whose daughter is a lesbian, said during the 2000 election campaign, “people should be able to enter into any kind of relationship they want to” and did not favor federal policy on this issue (Isaacs).

Right along Liberal lines, the ADA believes the federal programs are necessary to serve “the working poor, the disabled, and the elderly; favors cuts in defense spending; supports progressive taxes and job creation through public works and public service; government funding for life-long education programs; and increased regulation of corporations with regard to the outsourcing of jobs and adherence to child labor and human rights protections” (Income and Inequality:Millions Left Behind).

The Sierra Club

Committed to the exploration, enjoyment, and, most importantly, the conservation of the world’s wilderness, The Sierra Club is also considered a liberal organization and, since 1892, has a significant history of influencing political policies. It is best known for their development of public educational and scientific meetings, small and large group wilderness outings, its influence in the establishment of national parks, and the prevention of the construction of dams during the mid-20^th century. Driven by their motto, “Explore, enjoy, and protect the planet,” The Sierra Club links its ideology to modern-day policy regarding energy conservation, energy efficiency research, air pollution, toxic waste, wetland protection, and oil drilling. The maintenance of clean water, the end of commercial logging, the increase in global warming, its opposition to suburban sprawl and the reliance on highway transportation are clearly the top priorities of The Sierra Club (Politics & Elections).

During the 2004 presidential election campaign, The Sierra Club marked it a “critical year for the environment and accused former-President George W. Bush of waging an “assault on the environment” evidenced by his support on a number of critical issues: coal-fired power plants, which create sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide pollution; his directive to not enforce the Clean Water Act, which left “20 percent of United States wetlands at risk for dumping, filling, or pollution; a proposal to cut energy efficiency research by 27 percent; and his refusal to sign the Kyoto treaty, which aimed to reduce international greenhouse gas emissions (George W. Bush and John Kerry:Who Shares Your Priorities).

Understandably, the organization has managed to tie in its environmental ideology with that of other Liberal organizations, and Liberalism in general, by favoring multi-lateral negotiations in foreign policy; supporting human rights and family planning issues; and favoring slow global population growth, which is directly connected to improvement in the health of women and families. Although The Sierra Club is not against “Big Business” or the globalization of the marketplace, it strongly advocates “responsible trade” and expresses concern of “multinational corporations prospering at the expense of our environment,” since these corporations are often not subject to the stricter guidelines of the United States environmental law and policies (Responsible Trade:Trade and the Environment).

Classical Conservativism

American Conservatives today, however, differ from Contemporary Reform Liberals as they are in a sense a combination of a number of theories: Social Darwinism, classical liberal attitudes regarding economic policy, and the “Religious Right.” Conservatives view people as inherently unequal, evidenced by the gap between the rich and the poor; are proponents of a laissez faire economic policy that promotes a free marketplace of economic exchange they believe will lead to better products; and continue to espouse the notion that government is still the greatest threat to its citizens and, therefore, should be limited. Often driven by religious doctrine, their view of humanity is that people are inherently flawed, and thereby rationality is limited. Accordingly, they are pessimistic about real progress on Earth and believe progress can only be made gradually.

The American Conservative Union

The American Conservative Union (ACU) aligns itself most closely with the principles of Contemporary Conservatism as its major goals are to support capitalism, provide a strong national defense, keep traditional moral values, and promote the “original intent of the framers of the Constitution.” The ACU favors the maintenance of private control of economic power, lower taxes, and limited government spending, in essence, limiting the power of government. Other policy concerns for the ACU are: gun-control, abortion, and socialized medicine – all of which it protests. While the ACU does not favor funding social welfare programs, which it considers wasteful spending, it advocated substantial spending on nuclear weapons development and the “War on Terror” (ACU About Us).

The Heritage Foundation

For the past three decades, the Heritage Foundation has been conducting public policy research with a mission to “formulate and promote conservative public policies based upon the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.” To that end, the organization prides itself on being a “think tank” that focuses on major political issues including:homeland security, domestic policy, the economy, education, foreign policy, health care, welfare, and the importance of religion in civil society (About the Heritage Foundation:Our Mission).

Critical of Social Security because it is projected the program will spend more in benefits than it receives from taxed income, The Heritage Foundation believes it provides a poor return on investment. In its view, the alternative – in fact the “only effective way” to improve the system—is to allow workers to invest retirement taxes into personal retirement accounts while promising to keep the benefits for current retirees. This author believes the major weakness in this proposal is that it makes this an issue of poor retirement account planning and refrains from reporting the major reasons social security was initially established: to alleviate poverty among those who were unable to provide an income for themselves. Nowhere does The Heritage Foundation, or any other Conservative group, discuss social security benefits that are allotted for the disabled or their families or the death benefits provided through this program to widows and dependent children. Furthermore, it fails to acknowledge that today’s workers pay for today’s social security recipients; and should workers be able to move their monies into personal retirement accounts, there is no plan from the Conservatives, that this author has been able to uncover, which would provide the funding to bridge the gap. Perhaps, if social security reform is necessary, the retirement benefits from social security should go to those who need them most and not to those who have enough personal wealth to live decently (Issues 04:Social Security).

In promoting its version of “American values,” The Heritage Foundation and its conservatives allies link such values to religion and its place in civil society always citing the First Amendment as the basis for lobbying for federal or state support of religious organization with its stance: “Religion should not be barred from the public square, nor should religious organizations be barred from participating in government social service programs.” Few would argue that religion does not play a major role in the lives of many Americans and has substantial social value. But the Heritage Foundation recommends the government should affirm this within state-operated facilities by the upholding of such religious tenets; to confirm judges who will value the importance of religion; and to “level the playing field” by allowing the participation of religious organizations in federal social service programs.

The Heritage Foundation twists important facts; however, the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is clear on the issue: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” (Italics added). Religious organizations already have the freedom of speech but should not have the right to financial support from the government because it is unconstitutional for government to establish religion. As if the benefit of a tax-exempt status of religious or non-profit organization were not enough, Conservative groups, including the Heritage Foundation, deem such organizations are entitled to more benefits, including federal funding, because of the community support they provide. Inexplicably, they ask for public funding when they do not pay into the system; and it is, in this author’s opinion, an unfair demand of the American taxpayer (Issues 04:Religion and Civil Society).

The Christian Coalition of America

The organization’s vision lays claim to certain legislative victories (i.e.: the partial-birth abortion ban) and its right to create a dramatic, political change in the United States government as ordained by the “Lord’s having sent new leadership and a spirit of renewal to one of His choice instruments.” It also touted it had more access, influence, and impact on administration officials and congressional representatives during the 2004 election than at any other time in its history. The results of the 2004 election, in which the majority of its members cast their ballot in favor of those candidates with a conservative agenda – who subsequently won the election – is evidence of their highly-organized mobility. The coalition is determined to bequeath the “rich heritage of Christian liberty” to future generations through the following legislation: a ban on abortion, having the Ten Commandments posted in public places, keeping prayer in schools and the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, and anti-gay marriage laws, to name a few. While its members are certainly and constitutionally entitled to their opinions, their scope is not limited to asserting their own rights but is eerily focused on forcing their view upon the nation and the world at large (Christian Coalition “Our Vision”).

Radical in their description of the opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States, they have petitioned to “Stop Judicial Tyranny” by accusing the justices of the last 50 years of making “runaway” decisions that override public opinion. In an audacious stance, the Christian Coalition interpreted the founding Fathers’ original intent, in the creation of the nation’s government, as one that has the federal judiciary as the weakest branch of government and accuses the modern Congress of “shirking its constitutional responsibilities: by refusing to rein in liberal tyrannical federal judges” (Christian Coalition “Let’s Take America Back – Stop Judicial Tyranny in America”),

Admittedly, drawing strength from devout Christian theology instead of historical fact, the Coalition completely ignores that the the development of the United States government is one that is not based on Christian ideology but rather on the promotion of individual rights (including the freedom to worship as one chooses, or not to worship at all) identified in the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights (a secular, not religious, doctrine) and the development of a constitutional democracy (not a theocracy) complete with a system of checks and balances that applies to all three branches of government, none of which were to be inferior or subject to the whims of another branch.

With regard to Conservative organizations, this author senses that they are not as committed to limited government as they preach. Rather, they seem to want limited government only in certain arenas, most specifically social welfare programs. In fact, their idea of limited government is not defined by fewer government organizations, rather, it is their conviction that government is limiting with regard to personal freedoms of citizens.

People for the American Way

Founded in 1980 by one of the most influential television producers of the 1970s, Norman Lear, People for the American Way (PFAW) was developed in response to the “Religious Right” and “Moral Majority” leaders, most notably Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, whose stance, Lear believed, was capable of diminishing many of America’s fundamental freedoms: free speech, religious tolerance, academic freedom, and civil rights. The political ideology of the PFAW is best described as Liberal. The PFAW is committed to fighting for a diverse society and the maintenance of the Constitutional framework, which it believes is being threatened from extreme conservative political organizations; and it is known for collaborating with “leading national and state progressive organizations such as the NAACP, the National Endowment for the Arts, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the Advertising Council, and the U.S. Student Association in their fight for civil liberties.

In 1984, The New York Times described the PFAW as the only counter voice to the televangelists at the Republican National Convention in Dallas (People for the American Way and People for the American Way Foundation:A History). The PFAW’s website, like those of many other political organizations, is a plethora of information regarding congressional and administrative decisions and proposals on nearly every issue imaginable including: gay and lesbian rights, public education, school prayer, affirmative action, abortion and reproductive choice, and fair elections. On each issue they clearly propose what is at stake (citing legislative language and scientific studies); illustrate their concerns on each issue, developments in Congress; and make suggestions to the layman on what can be done to protect the civil liberties at risk (i.e. writing letters, sending faxes, making phone calls, etc.). The organization opposes censorship and the allocation of public funds for private and /or religious education; strongly supports full equality under law, including the right to marry for gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgender Americans; the right to abortion; and affirmative action policies for groups that have been historically underrepresented due to discriminatory practices. The PFAW is committed to preserving the integrity of the Constitution by opposing Constitutional amendments on controversial issues.

The PFAW suggests that the Federal Marriage Amendment would undermine the integrity of our founding document by "writing discrimination into it for the first time.” While the language in the amendment reads that “Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman,” it is an exaggeration to suggest this would be the “first time” discrimination has been written into the Constitution. One only needs to read several paragraphs into the document to know that, in its early days, it referred to certain populations of the United States as having the value of only three-fifths of a person. This is certainly not a justification for passage of any such amendment that could be construed as discriminatory nor the kind of legal precedent that should be followed at any time in the future (On Capitol Hill: The Federal Marriage Amendment).

The American Civil Liberties Union

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) calls itself “our nation’s guardian of liberty” and is actually two separate entities with litigation and communication efforts performed by the ACLU Foundation and legislative lobbying activities. The Foundation works diligently “in courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties” and the structure of government as provided for in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. In handling approximately 6,000 court cases annually, the ACLU has a mission to preserve the rights established by the First Amendment and the rights to equal protection under the law, due process, and privacy (ACLU About Us). Although the organization is non-partisan, it most closely follows Liberalism as it is focused on individual rights; but it is easy to conclude that it may actually split along that line as it take the position that government cannot be completely trustworthy as it “plays watchman” over the legislative propositions or actions it sees as a threat to civil liberties among all the branches of government: Congress, the Presidency, and the Supreme Court.

The Cato Institute

Founded in 1977, a non-profit, public policy research foundation, the Cato Institute is a proponent of “Individual Liberty, Limited Government, Free Markets, and Peace.” World-renowned for its examination of issues across a broad spectrum, they positioned themselves against Contemporary Liberal and Conservative policies alike. Their books, papers, reports, studies, and presentations in numerous venues including Senate Committee hearings seek out to promote political freedom and economic opportunity not only in the United States but around the world. It may be difficult to put the Cato Institute into a “boxed ideology (Conservative or Liberal) because it takes some of the values of each, a Libertarian stance: “the Jeffersonian philosophy that animates Cato’s work has increasingly come to be called ‘libertarianism’ or ‘market liberalism.’ It combines an appreciation for entrepreneurship, the market process, and lower taxes with strict respect for civil liberties and skepticism about the benefits of both the welfare state and foreign military adventurism. Certainly, the Cato Institute favors limited government, a Market-Liberal approach:

“[Recognizing] that socialism and government planning are just too clumsy for the modern world. It is – or used to be – the conventional wisdom that a more complex society needs more government, but the truth is just the opposite. The simpler society, the less damage government planning does. Planning is cumbersome in an agricultural society, costly in an industrial economy, and impossible in the information age. Today collectivism and planning are outmoded and backward, a drag on social progress” (About Cato).

Author’s Views

Although many years ago I might have considered myself to be a Left-Liberal, I found the more I learned about government policy and ideology, the more inclined I was to believe that extensive federal policies weaken our country. It is critical to view all sides of an argument before implementing legislation that can unnecessarily complicate an issue and polarize the public. In this respect, I am wary of government and do not believe it can be totally trusted primarily because government is made up of people who often have their personal interests or interest group demands at the heart of their decision-making process. Government should have the safety and welfare of its citizens as its centerpiece with regard to any issue. Safety and welfare cannot be driven by religious morality or tenets; rather they must be addressed on fact and science. Social welfare programs are often needed by citizens, but they do not necessarily have to become permanent solutions. Those who are physically able to participate in the economic contest need to do so not only for their own stability and independence, but to relieve unnecessary burdens on the nation-state; however, they need to have a level playing field with equal opportunity to education and employment.

Additionally, if government is focused on the safety and welfare of its citizens, it cannot deny that it has a responsibility to assist those who are weakest and unable to provide for their own needs: the elderly and the disabled who live in poverty. To that end, permanent solutions are necessary and cannot be considered as wasteful spending. To withhold assistance to the most destitute in our nation is to deny their right to life.

Government must always take care to insure civil liberties for all of its citizens during any inner crisis or foreign threat because to do anything less would result in government abuses. Likewise, to limit enumerated freedoms against the backdrop of religious values is a bastardization of constitutional democracy. The balance of power must be maintained among the three branches of government; and it is critical to life, liberty, and equality that any movement outside of that directive be challenged.

By Liza Lugo, J.D.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

American Civil Liberties Union.“ACLU:About Us.” http://www.aclu.org/about/aboutmain.cfm 10/14/04.

American Conservative Union.“ACU:About Us.” http://www.conservative.org/about/default.asp 10/14/04.

Americans for Democratic Action.“About ADA.” 10/14/04.

Americans for Democratic Action. “ADA Legislative Alert:Major Attack on Women’s Reproductive Rights.” 10/17/04.

Americans for Democratic Action, Inc.“Income and Inequality:Millions Left Behind.” Feb. 2004. Cato Institute. “About Cato.” http://www.cato.org/about/about.html 10/14/04.

Christian Coalition of America.“Let’s Take America Back – Stop Judicial Tyranny in America Petition.” 10/14/04.

Combs, Roberta.“Welcome.”Christian Coalition of America. http://www.cc.org 10/14/04.

DeLauro, Rosa.“Economic Opportunity for Women.”ADA Today. Vol. 58, No.2May 2003.

The Heritage Foundation.“About the Heritage Foundation:Our Mission.” http://www.heritage.org/About/ 10/14/04.

The Heritage Foundation.“Issues 04:Religion and Civil Society.” http://www.heritage.org/research/features/issues2004/religion.cfm 10/14/04.

The Heritage Foundation.“Issues 04:Social Security.” 10/14/04.

Isaacs, Amy. “Amendment Would be Destructive to the Constitution.” Americans for Democratic Action. http://www.adaction.org/opinion.htm 10/14/04.

People for the American Way.“People for the American Way and People for the American Way Foundation: A History.”http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=2851 10/16/04.

People for the American Way.“On Capitol Hill:The Federal Marriage Amendment.” http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=13749.10/16/04.

Sierra Club.“George W. Bush and John Kerry:Who Shares Your Priorities." 10/14/04.

Sierra Club. “Politics & Elections.” http://www.sierraclub.org/politics/10/16/04.

Sierra Club.“Responsible Trade:Trade and the Environment.”

Copyright © 2012. All Rights Reserved.