At about the time of the French Revolution, the terms "left" and "right" took their meanings from where people happened to sit in the French Parliament. Ever since about the 1790s the "left" came to mean a collectivist sort of economy, controlled by the state; and the "right" came to mean a individualist sort of economy and operating to market forces.
Got that? Left = a controlled market; Right = a laissez-faire market.
The word "conservative" at its heart means to "conserve". As far as historical roots go, that meant a conservation of the then evolving hierarchical system which saw royalty at the top, followed people with titles and the landed gentry. Towards the end of the 19th century, the rise of mercantile classes, that is those of business, basically caused a schism in the classical conservative movement.
The mercantile business classes wanted to see a greater degree of laissez-faire capitalism or "liberalism". A liberal in the classic sense of the word and which is the sense from which the British and Australian Liberal parties draw their name.
The problem is that when you speak to an American, because the country deals on another more nebulous axis and is generally right shifted, the words "conservative" and "liberal" mean something entirely different.
America seems to want to deal on a weird sort of Authoritarian-Liberatarian sort of axis. Due the fact that America was born in a state which was a reaction to classical conservatism and never saw a titled gentry, it was the world of business which came to run and which still does run the country.
The American definitions of "conservative" seems to hinge around moral values, which is weird because if the United States is explicitly atheist in its constitution, then this doesn't really make sense. The idea of being free from government control seems to fit well with a Libertarian stance but even that doesn't explain the "conservative" - "liberal" axis.
Basically to be a "conservative" in the United States is for someone to be broadly morally conservative but still economically liberal. In terms of economic parlance, the leadership styles of George W Bush, John Howard and Tony Blair all fell into Neoliberalism.
The only thing to mark a "liberal" in the United States as far as I can make out is either being a Social Progressivist or perhaps suggesting a greater degree of government control in the economy which itself is leftist in the classic sense and in no way at all liberal.
To call someone a "liberal" in the United States as far as I can make out seems to be little more than to find a derogatory epithet for them. That's fine I suppose in a media climate which spends most of its time basically demonising who it doesn't like and yelling at the opposition. It also adequately explains why the functional political literacy of the average American is so low.
Because I am a genuine leftist when it comes to infrastructure, a rightist with regards the functioning of markets, prices, and consumer goods; a social conservative and skeptical progressivist, on various forum boards I've been called both a "conservative" and a "liberal" in the same thread. The scary thing is that I suspect that the people who like to call those names, have no idea what they're actually saying or what they even mean.
No comments:
Post a Comment