A False Dichotomy in Political Belief: Liberalism and Conservatism
Liberalism and conservatism do not act opposite to one another, they intersect with another dichotomy
Despite how we communicate a binary of political thought, liberalism and conservatism are not a dichotomy or even intrinsically opposite on the social spectrum. They are, in different contexts, unable to exist in the same axis of the spectrum. Values are the underlying spectrum.
In the framework of political discussions and the conclusions derived from them, there exists an assumed dichotomy between liberalism, the advocacy of liberty and equality[1], and conservatism, the advocacy of upholding certain traditions and values[2]. It’s easy to say that there are liberals and conservatives who don’t agree with the Democrat Party, the Republican Party or both; yet in the same breath use the word liberal and Left interchangeable for Democrat, of conservative and Right interchangeable for Republican in American political discourse. But all of these words, despite having nuanced similarities, are not intrinsically linked oppositionally.
What is to be understood is that language is only applicable to that which we are trying to give a name to, and people use language in different ways than others do. Liberalism and conservatism do not just mean the dictionary definitions to a lot of people; to some, liberals are close-minded “retards” incapable of understanding the limits of empathy, to some, conservatives are unsympathetic patriarchs clinging onto values because they cannot withstand a challenge. But both of these are based on personal interaction with those who have proclaimed themselves under such a label.
In political theory, the best models we have currently are those which present multiple dimensions with different spectrums and because of the multitude of political theories that exist, umbrella terms are used and terms which are contingent on the meaning of another term, a certain term of their respective philosophy is used with a certainty.
Personal interaction, investigation, and development, dictates how one defines a term, and thus, how one begins to see the world. If I’d not met an anarcho-capitalist who conflated private and personal property, it’s likely I wouldn’t think twice about what the difference may be. If a person had not met a liberal who was rude to them for having different political outlooks, it’s likely the person wouldn’t think twice about what the political outlooks of most liberals are.
This is why politics has no universal foundations, language is dependent on experience.
And this is why linguistics is always contentious, it is a personal manifestation of things otherwise impersonal, typically. Yet, because it is language, it is personal. And politics, and by its root, linguistics, becomes easily fallacious. Capitalists and communists don’t hate each other, they just can’t agree on what property is and is not, because it is so easily interpretable, as it always comes down to value and that which is imposed on it.
Interpretations
Astronomers experience the sun is a large ball of, predominantly, hydrogen and helium. Considering what we know hydrogen and helium to be, and what other stars are made of, this is considered fact and is not immediately dismissed by most. But politics does not have the luxury of being positivistic like most sciences. And, despite whether your philosophy of science is closer to scientific realism or anti-realism, it is observable political philosophy is based on rhetoric and reasoning rather than observation and falsification. But, just as philosophy can become too logical calculus, so should politics be able to.
Politics evolves by the use of ideas, but the understanding of politics derives from a language. We use language to convey the ideas which are presented by politics, despite the lack of effectiveness in doing so.
The evolution of our understanding of politics is an ability to interpret rhetoric and what said rhetoric means, But this cycles back to the use of logic and how there should be an ability to have the propositional logic of politics be tautological, despite the intrinsic complications which politics has.
In political beliefs, teams are formed and those who do not agree completely with you are an opposite team. It is a game meant to be played rather than reasoned, which is why we view liberal and conservative as completely different generally, rather than to understand that they can coexist and evolve into the other. Liberalism can become conservatism by the following logic:
- Premise 1: Liberation happens through an understanding of values
- Premise 2: Conservation of values is most societally important
- Premise 3: Understanding of values can lead to a larger importance to values
- Conclusion: In understanding values, values are more important and thus a liberation of a society through means of conservation.
Analysis:
- Premise 1: Liberation happens through an understanding of values
Freedom, in the particularly Nietzschean sense, comes for something rather than from something. To understand what values are valuable and which are not — or even all or none — is freedom. To not understand is entrapment by adhering to something you do not understand.
- Premise 2: Conservation of values is most societally important
Whether it is previous values or new values, values, to those believe them, are clearly very important to believe in. And that extension is typically the foundation for political belief, to believe that one’s values, and structures built on those values, are what is most important for one’s ideal society.
- Premise 3: Understanding of values can lead to a larger importance to values
This premise goes back to the first premise with the importance to one’s political belief by understanding. The more one understands their values and still believes them, the more important they become to the person. Typically, eventually, becoming an identity for the person — a way to be described by others.
- Conclusion: In understanding values, values are more important and thus a liberation of a society through means of conservation.
When one considers their axiological foundations for their beliefs, if the end result is a stronger belief in their values based on an understanding of those values, the values then come from liberation of thought towards possible conservation of those ideas.
Thus, openminded liberal investigation of belief can become very conservative towards the structures one believes in. Despite how liberalism is used as openmindedness to ideas in politics and conservatism is used as closemindedness in politics. But this is clearly not the case if liberal ideas can lead to conservative ideology. Just as how many people who considered themselves liberals of yesteryear can become the conservatives of today; it is all situational. Which is why using the terms as an absolute can cause ideological segregation.
But, isn’t liberation built on going beyond an initial understanding of values and come to one’s own conclusions to hold values or not? Yes, and the conservation of certain values may come from the ethics derived from the process of liberation, thus making one liberal yet conservative — a conservative liberal. A conservative liberal can exist as much as a liberal conservative can, with the fusing of liberal and conservative values. Thus, liberalism and conservatism are not antithetical in meaning. This is based on one’s own axiological hierarchy, or value system, in which values may become intrinsic to one’s belief of interrelated powers by extrinsic reasons to value, but may have ultimately a different axiological outcome. That is, the ends may have to justify the means to continue a belief. The ends (liberation) must come through the means (conservation).
Swinging The Pendulum
If we were to take this to its extreme, it can become fascistic — particularly Nazist extrinsically. The safety and liberation of the Aryan race must come from the conservation of the Riech, this happens by the those who we view as anti-Aryan. Which is why conservatism is so easily labeled proto-fascism and any ideology concerned on axiological conservation can become proto-fascist. But, just like tolerance to drugs, higher dosage doesn’t indicate addiction.
Progressivism, in Kantian philosophy, asserts itself to be the progression of the human condition. This is why Kant was progressive because deontology was reliant upon it. And, in such a case, most people are thus progressive. In the case of wanting to progress society, both conservatives and liberals are progressive.
The breaking down of the word progressivism, current progressivism, and Kantian progressivism are, however, all very much different. Kant’s philosophy necessitated political progressivism by his deontology, but when we speak of progressivism, it is generally not in the case of speaking on Kant; it is typically referred to as politics like that of FDR or Bernie Sanders, who anarchists would see as too authoritarian and insurrectionists see as not authoritarian enough. It then becomes a matter of progress relative to authority and the use of it. It imposes a restriction on the use of the word progress, just as much as the use of liberalism and conservatism imposes restrictions on those words, too.
In some sense, conservatism can be progressive from the point of view that a tradition which is not valued currently is a means by which to progress a society to a certain standard. And in the way in which conservatism is defined, if it is defined as “advocacy for tradition” or “returning to tradition”, then it is by proxy progressive — or at least a way in which to change a society. But if it is defined by “maintaining of tradition” or “ conservation of tradition” (reactionary and fundamentalist conservatism) then it is not progressive but rather a neutral or regressive state.
We like to think ideas like big government and abortion to be liberal ideas, but this is only somewhat true. Big government is only liberal by dependency on the notion of whether a large governmental body can effectively uphold the values of liberty and equality. The idea of big government would be a conservative idea if that is to be valued as traditional.
Which is how the political pendulum swings, through how we use language with imposed meaning on it not always succinctly defined. And how we use language as absolutes rather than the dialectic it is.
What is the contradiction of the current dialectics of politics is that they are situational, yet rigid; contended on the philosophy which birthed the idea, yet has a contingency on the actions of the advocates. This contradiction does not take into account the fact that humans are fallible and can misinterpret things easily or recognize patterns which are non-existent. This is why it can become just as easy to become a feminist as much as it is easy to become anti-feminist because of the meaning of words and our usage.
Because we pretend that people who are under a certain label cannot act a certain way does not mean that they don’t, it only means that you do not believe such a thing happens. The more we ignore the complexity of politics and choose not to understand that the lack of foundations for it and to remain confined to a binary the more we divide ourselves. And not that division is intrinsically a terrible thing, we are all different, but the goal of politics is always identity; to be responsible for someone, whether oneself or another, few or many. Politics is intrinsically rooted in compassion for either oneself or another; it is entrenched in ethics. Whether you wish to help yourself or others, common ground cannot be found in division — in false foundations.
Liberalism and conservatism, by the use of the words by what they logically mean, do not exist on opposing sides of the social spectrum completely. Progressivism, too, muddies the language of politics even further. The imposed dichotomy between liberalism and conservatism is nonexistent in the way in which it is commonly referred to. Due to the false foundations, we base each other on, politics becomes compounded into many things which cause confusion to anyone on the compass. The goal of political philosophy seems to typically be to develop an ideology for which the world should be run by, but it is built on language undefined properly and doesn’t take change into its account.
I’m writing a book called The Politiconomy which attempts to make a modular system of symbols and language to understand foundations of politics rather than the rhetoric we use today. Keep a look out for that big boy.
