Well, if we are quibbling over the definitions, we should read them:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=liberal
[I find these most interesting:]
Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=conservative
[This one is less interesting - most definitions amount to "one who espouses conservatism"]
Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.
It seems to me that conservatives are for the traditional America. Traditional America was not always Constitutional America, but conservatives are not overly troubled by that. Liberal America scares the hell out of conservatives.
Liberals seem "open to new ideas" and I see them as not caring about what the constitution really means, but wanting to find new ways to define rights or interpret the constitution, or, when all else fails, discredit it. They seem to be most interested in some version of fairness or justice (especially "social justice") and I percieve them as focusing more on outcomes.
They seem to not be too worried about how much opportunity people have and they don't seem to excited one way or the other about people who rise above their circumstance - if anything, they seem to find these people annoying because it hurts their ability to point out "injustice".
I actually am pretty cynical and think that most of the power brokers who are liberals are actually communists or dictator wannabe's. I think they find ways to co-opt "causes" that people care about. I think most of the power brokers in liberalism actually hold their followers in contempt.
Conservatives trouble me more recently. Many of them are conservatives because they are good, decent, religious people (interestingly, there is a good sized chunk of liberals who are liberal because they see it as most christian).
Many conservative (but not all) seem to support conservatism because it is aligned with their religious view points. Many believe homosexuality is a sin so they are against gay marriage. Same with abortion and many other hot issues. The problem I have is that many of the views are arbitrary and they often seem interested in only protecting the freedoms they cherish.
As a person with strong libertarian leanings, and as a religious person, I have had to come to terms with the fact that I think people ought to be free to live how they want. I am not big on "drugs", but I believe God created marijuana and opiates and other narcotics. Frankly, if someone in my family had a bad disease (cancer) and needed pot, I would get it.
Ayan Rand was actually an athiest. However, I think I can make a good case for christians being libertarians. God made us free to choose. One thing about christianity is that it calls your actions good or evil not based on what the actual action is, but based on what your
intent is.
So many conservatives seem bent on legislating morality - presumably with the intention of coercing people into doing good things and avoiding bad things. Yet, for Christians, the sin is not in the action, but in the heart. And the virtue is not in going through the motions, but in doing right out of a love for what is right.
Does anyone see virtue in donating money to charity at gunpoint? If pornography is illegal, will people cease to lust in their hearts?
My theory is that in a truly free society, Gods great experiment is finally and most gloriously put to test. Without fear of punishment, will man do what is right? To what degree? Suddenly, it is up to us. How many men do not go to prostitutes simply because it is illegal? How many churches have closed their soup kitchens because people are fed by the government?
Finally, I do not think that a completely libertarian society is possible. For many of the same reasons that a completely communist society is not possible. I think it is important to keep pulling in that direction, but even if we woke up to it one day, it would be unsustainable. As soon as a large chunk of people have to live with the unbuffered consequences of their actions, they will form and unionize and rebel and mob and take, etc. Too few people would "benefit" and too many would be out in the cold and those people are the ones who will be looking for a new political philosophy. I can hear it now: "what has liberty done for you lately? has it fed your kids?...etc" And so the liberty is no longer watered, but drowned in blood...
One guy at work says he thinks the whole point of welfare is to placate the poor and hopeless to keep them from "rising up" a la the French Revolution, etc.
Anyway, just some late night musings, eat the meat, leave the bones, as my grand pappy says...
