Ideological labels

                In the absence of a significant socialist force within American politics, the ideological contest is centered upon conservatism and liberalism. However, the terms are somewhat misleading. Like many ideological labels, they are all-encompassing and therefore fail to cast sufficient light upon our understanding. For example, the term ‘liberal’ fails to inform us if we are talking about social liberalism (Keynes, 1973) or classical liberalism (Hayek, 1944; Smith, 1776; T. Friedman, 2005 and 2008). In the states, the L-word tends to be shorthand for a social liberal perspective. This however only gives us part of the picture.

                First and foremost, a liberal (henceforth associated with the term social liberal) adopts a progressive mindset. Liberals take a positive view of human nature and believe that the purpose of politics is to create a more tolerant society based upon fairness and equal opportunities. Note the distinction here between equality of opportunity, and equality of outcome. The latter is associated with socialism; very much a negligible force within the states. A liberal would therefore favor an activist state that seeks to combat discrimination within society via affirmative action and laws against gender discrimination. Liberals would also be supportive of the government allocating resources in order to help the struggling middle-class.

                Liberals also favor the advancement of civil rights in the states. During the 1950s and 60s, civil rights came to be associated with the empowerment of African-Americans. By the 1970s, the term had widened towards female emancipation. In the contemporary era, it also incorporates LGBT groups. A liberal would therefore support gay marriage and criticize attempts by the religious right to 'pray Gays away.' They might also promote laws that seek to prevent homophobia and trans-phobia within the workplace. In terms of women’s rights, liberals are pro-choice on the issue of abortion. Women should have the right to take a decision that affects their own body. Liberals also support laws to prevent sexism in the workplace.

                Another facet of liberalism relates to the place of religion within American society. Whilst liberals strongly support the first amendment rights concerning freedom of worship, they are also mindful that religious dogma can provide the basis for the tyranny of the majority. Liberals thereby seek to emphasize the wall of separation between church and state, and seek to ensure that people from minority religions (and atheists) do not face negative discrimination.

                In contrast to their liberal opponents, conservatives adopt a more traditionalist mindset. Conservatives are more inclined to adopt a skeptical view of human nature than their liberal counterparts. The various agents of the state should therefore be utilized in order to keep the negative forces of human nature in check. This may for instance translate to high levels of spending on the police, defense and national security. Conservatives routinely claim that liberals are soft on crime and weak on national security.

                By inclination and temperament, conservatives favor the status quo. They prefer the accumulated wisdom of previous generations to liberal-inspired schemes based on abstract concepts such as fairness and equal opportunities. Most conservatives would concur with Samuel Johnson’s famous argument that “the road to hell is paved with good intentions.” Conservatives tend to be skeptical of government agencies that seek to interfere in the marketplace (such as the Environmental Protection Agency), claiming that such agencies routinely serve vested interests (such as the Department of Education in relation to teaching unions). Conservatives are therefore more favorable towards laissez-faire economics than their liberal opponents.

                Most figures within the religious right could be labeled social conservatives who seek to rescue America from the moral pollution generated by the heathen forces of liberal-secularism. To take one example, gay marriage is seen as inconsistent with religious teachings (namely Leviticus 18:22 “thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination”). During the noughties George W. Bush was particularly successful at using religion to reach out towards values voters (particularly Latinos who might otherwise have voted for the Democrats). The dominance of religious values within the Republican Party is such that some commentators claim that GOP really stands for God’s Own Party.

                A great deal of liberal discourse is grounded in support for rights and freedom, whereas conservatives are more likely to use words such as duties and responsibilities. Not surprisingly, one of the chief criticisms made by conservatives is that liberals place too much emphasis upon rights. This can result in a form of excessive individualism which ultimately unravels the bonds of society. It can also result in a demand that minority rights should outweigh the reasonable objections of the silent majority. Republicans have often sought to portray their Democrat opponents as beholden to strident minority/marginalized groups. This line of argument is particularly noticeable from conservative talk-show hosts.

                Most liberal politicians tend to be found within the Democratic Party. Liberal Republicans, once a key element within the GOP; are very much on the wane. The dwindling number of liberal Republicans is almost entirely located within blue states in the union, such as those in the North-East. For instance, Maine has recently replaced Olympia Snowe for Susan Collins; both of whom could be described as liberal Republicans. As one might expect, social and fiscal conservatives tend to be found within the GOP. Whilst a number of southern conservatives continue the Dixiecrat tradition, their numbers are also on the wane. Both parties have adopted a more ideologically pure stance since the downfall of the New Deal in the late-1960s. This reflects the phenomenon of ideological polarization, an issue that casts a lengthy shadow over American politics.

                It is also worth noting that the use of the word liberal has becoming something of a negative since the 1980s. Liberalism is at times associated with a major role for the federal government; to the extent that Bill Clinton sought to distance the Democrats from this toxic label by stating that “the era of big government is over.” Liberalism is also associated in the minds of many Americans with an aggressive secularism and shrill feminism somewhat at odds with the rest of the population. Thirdly, liberals are regularly labeled as elitist and therefore out-of-touch with ordinary everyday Joes. Republicans claim to champion the common-sense values of God-fearing, Church-going folk against the liberal-secularism of the Democrats. Republicans such as Reagan and George W. Bush were particularly skilled at packaging themselves in a folksy manner at ease with the concerns of ordinary Americans.

By way of contrast, conservatives are labeled by their opponents as either callous, religious extremists or reactionary Archie Bunker-type figures who just don’t get climate change or the need to limit gun ownership. Democrats can find that it pays electoral dividends to present their Republican rivals as out-of-touch with the everyday concerns of Americans struggling to survive from one pay check to the next. That said; an overt emphasis upon class warfare does not play well in the states. Americans do not resent wealth-creators. Indeed, we often admire displays of wealth as a just reward for hard work and enterprise. Most Americans simply want a fair chance to create wealth for themselves and their family. Either way, it is the task of the informed student to look beyond simplistic labels when seeking to properly comprehend ideological debate within the states.