@Foxfyre,
Quote:
I don't recall anybody even attempting to define or defend American
liberalism. Every single one who has attempted to do it wound up
bashing the President or Republicans or Conservatives.
OK: I 'll take a shot at defining "conservative" and "liberal".
(Let me begin by self-identifying as a libertarian - individualist,
who is objectively defining these terms.)
I 've done this on some other fora; now I 'll try it here.
To "conserve" means to keep, not to dissipate, nor to abandon.
It means to rigidly and inflexibly adhere to (like keeping your word)
regardless of external circumstances or of emotional considerations.
"Liberal" means to do so,
to a lesser extent.
The
less one does so, the more "liberal" one becomes.
Hence,
Liberalism can ONLY EXIST in the presence of DEVIATION from the rule
or agreement to which the conservative adheres so inflexibly, whatever that may be.
Liberalism
IS that deviation, that
veering away from.
If liberalism had a motto, it woud be: "that 's close enuf."
"Conservative" means
"orthodox"; "liberal" means "deviant."
"Conservative" and "liberal" are
RELATIVE concepts; thay have no meaning,
except insofar as thay relate to something else such as a belief,
or a rule or body of rules, be thay embodied in a contract, a statute,
a constitution, or some rulebook or any agreement etc.
For instance:
if 2 men agree to meet at a designated time n place
and thay actually
DO so, there is no element of liberalism
about that because there was no deviation from their agreement.
If one of them is a minute late, he is liberal to the extent of his
applying that degree of deviation from their agreement.
If he is half an hour late, with a sob story for an excuse,
then he is
MORE liberal relative to that agreement,
in that he
veered away from the agreement to the extent of that half hour of lateness.
If he is a week late, then he is
yet MORE liberal as to their agreement.
(If he
never arrives, then he is
RADICAL ["from the root"] qua the agreement to meet.)
If Mr. A and Mr. B contract to sell A's horse for $5,OOO
with payment and the horse to be exchanged in a week,
and they
DO what they promised to do,
there's
nothing liberal about that. They kept their words n their contract.
If B shows up 1O days later, with $3,OOO and a hard luck story:
my Dad abandoned me 30 years ago, I had a fight with my cousin last week,
my boss doesn't like me because I set the office on fire,
I'm a member of a disadvantaged minority group, n my left foot stinx,
therefore, our contract implies (liberals
LOVE that word)
that the correct price is
$3,OOO not $5,000
,
Mr. B thereby urges that a
LIBERAL interpretation be applied to the contract of sale.
If a man rigidly adheres to some rule, or body rules,
then, as to that body of rules he is a conservative,
in that he has 100% rigidly conserved it, with no deviation therefrom;
whereas if he decides " that 's close enuf " and accepts results
which approximate it, but differ somewhat from the said rules,
then
to the extent of the inconsistency he is a liberal.
For example:
if a man wears a clean tuxedo to a formal event,
he is rigidly conserving and inflexibly applying the customary rules of dress therefor;
whereas, if he wears a somewhat stained, dirty tuxedo, with sneakers,
( deciding " that 's close enuf " )
then he is bending the rules of customary proper dress,
and therefore, concerning those rules, he is taking a liberal interpretation
of what is " close enuf. " If he shows up at the event naked,
then he is taking a RADICAL vu, extirpating all the rules of dress.
NEXT POST, I will define this as it applies
to the American political scene.
David
