TOK! I will admit it! I am truly a liberal at heart!
This will come as a surprise to those of you who might know anything about
me. As the founder and editor of The Conservative Camp, most people would
assume that I would consider a liberal or liberal thought to be the antipathy
of all common sense. Yet here I am, openly coming out to admit that I am
not only a liberal, but also that I am a very proud liberal ready to advocate
my idealism and activism onto the rest of society.
Now that I have admitted what many of you may never have known, I had better
explain in more detail what I mean when I use the word "liberal." To
me, "liberal" and "liberalism" are verbs, which in their classical meaning
are actually what today we call conservative. The Acton Institute defines
Classical Liberalism as,
A term used to describe a political philosophy commonly held in nineteenth-century
England and France but now undergoing a renaissance in the United States.
Classical liberals advocate free markets, a vibrant array of non-governmental
institutions (such as civic groups, schools, churches, etc.), and minimal
tax-financed governmental services. Classical liberals firmly believe that
both individuals and property should be protected from physical harm. They
also emphasize the strict enforcement of contracts and the right to free
This pretty much flies right into the face of what today we call "liberalism."
Today's liberals are those that advocate just the opposite. They desire an
extreme portion of a person's paycheck in the form of higher taxes in order
to support large government programs. Bureaucratic oversight is a term today's
liberals love. As the left does not believe we individuals are capable of
making wise or informed decisions about how best to allocate our own resources,
they put their trust into a large "Big Brother" government loaded with programs
to use your money more wisely. Since individuals might make a mistake with
an investment or may not be "sensitive" enough in allocating their own money
toward the "right" programs and charities, it is best to let government just
take large portions of your income to make your allocations for you. Liberals
reason that doing this assures we all put our money toward the "right" programs
and charities instead of leaving that decision up to each person. It reduces
the "risk" that you may decide not to put a portion of your hard-earned income
to an organization such as The National Endowment for the Arts, allowing
them to continue with "cultural art exhibits" like a Crucifix soaked in urine.
It reduces the risk you might not donate your hard-earned money to groups
such as The National Organization for Women, Planned Parenthood, or even
the United Nations, all of whom advocate tax-funded, state-sponsored murder
of innocent unborn children behind the facade of "choice." After all, liberals
don't want the "crazy anti-choice, pro-Bush, pro-Jesus, vast Right Wing gun-toters"
to make unethical choices in how they allocate their income. Today's liberals
want to protect classical liberals from their "natural evil tendencies" in
their non-support of such civilized affairs as women's rights and art culture.
The word "liberal" has been taken out of its classical content and hijacked
by the radical left as mainstream liberalism. However, labels must be taken
in relation to who, where and the circumstances they are applied. As an American
conservative, my ideological beliefs and values are less in line to those
of, say, Iranian or Saudi "conservatives." Their version of "conservatism"
adheres to total state control on all aspects of everyone's life, down to
the most personal of details. Conservatives from these lands advocate no
individual rights whatsoever and brutally oppose all who attempt to change
those societies toward liberal democratic ideals. Meanwhile, liberals in
these same countries are the ones advocating change to promote individual
freedom, personal rights and dignity, less governmental control, and more
entrepreneurial spirit. This is quite the opposite of Western, and particularly,
U.S. liberalism, which wants less personal freedom and much more state control
over all affairs, public and personal. We can see where the label only relates
to the circumstances to which they are borne. In Saudi Arabia, I would be
labeled a "radical liberal" while Hillary Clinton although a female and not
equal to a man in Saudi ideology (although I might be wrong in Hillary's
case), might be called a "conservative!"
Understanding this, you can see why I now admit to being a liberal in the
classical sense of the word. True, I am a conservative by today's definition.
However, as a conservative, and therefore a classical liberal, I believe
we must work to bring about a change in the mentality of our national psyche.
We must do all in our power to become good servant-leaders demonstrating
compassion to all and using our talents and treasures through individual
commitment and faith-based organizations to create the free, vigorous and
virtuous society envisioned by the classical liberals who founded our country.
We must remain on guard against today's radical "liberals" that seek to take
our very freedoms and rights as individuals away, one Federal court appeal
at a time. We must return the word "liberalism" to its true meaning, which
invokes compassion, caring, cohesive and harmonious existence, helping, hope,
opportunities and prosperity. We need to remember that it is conservatives
that demonstrate the true meaning of compassionate classical liberalism,
hence the label "compassionate conservative."
I hope all of you classical liberals to the right side of common sense will
join me in proclaiming your liberalism loud and proudly to the so-called
"liberals" on the left. Drive them crazy by taking back the labels true meaning.
Let them find some other label they can sugarcoat in order to hide the truth.
Compassion and Prosperity!
Email Robert Ditmar
this article to a friend