The Big Question Every issue we pose a question for anyone who is interested to answer in essay form. The best essay wins and is published in the next issue of Veracity. This issue's winner, Dash Lancaster, took home a $50 gift certificate to Ruth's Chris Steak House. Find out about the next issue's contest here

I was having dinner with friends once and one brought up her intent on getting a tattoo. She didn’t want one of those small ones, she wanted to be original and get a big one across the small of her back. On principle, another friend objected that she would so deprecate herself. He pointed out that it wasn’t even original to get a design plastered about the small of one’s back—every trendy girl had one. Noting the discord, I suggested that we “be democratic about this,” meaning that we all vote on her getting a tattoo as if the rest of us had any say in the matter. The aspiring canvas rejected the idea because, as she said, “I’m Republican.” The others said they were too and I made four. Ultimately, we did not vote on the subject because, evidently, Republicans don’t vote.

The error was not uncommon with those in my generation and especially those in the younger one. There is no difference between the lower-case and upper-case versions of the two words. To be democratic is to be liberal, hippy-ish and vote for the Clintons—Democratic. To be republican is to be conservative, stand up against our parents’ generation and do things on principle—Republican. The idea of democrats advocating a democracy, where the people of a group vote directly on the issues of governance, and republicans advancing toward a republic, where the people of a group vote on representatives who take care of governmental concerns is lost for many. Most likely, this is due to the fact that people my age care very little about the government of a society and all words end up representing some stance on social things. As the words lose their meaning, inconsistencies appear. With regard to the young girl’s tattoo, my recommendation that we be democratic about it was to my friend a call for loosening our morals whereas to me it implied a move to strengthen our principles.

One has a good deal of trouble exploring the concepts of government with others when their vocabulary is so skewed. Most of the time, such a discussion winds up being an “I’m right, you’re wrong,” battle and the subject—in this case, politics—becomes the guilty party, to be avoided at all costs. There is substantial ground to cover with respect to political concepts despite this terminological failure. If we can get around the various misconceptions behind politics we can then find solutions to the dilemmas that ache for our attention presently. I will use this essay as a brief attempt to get us to that valuable position.

To begin, let us look at the state of the political parties. It is widely known that ours is a two-party system anchored by the Democrats on one side and the Republicans on the other. This fact is not as honest as it should be. People assume that since a third-party candidate hasn’t won the presidency, they don’t factor in politics, but their effect is quite significant despite the obvious indicators. Third-party candidates have scored notable wins in recent state races and have helped determine the outcome of the last three presidential races—taking away sizeable percentages of voters from the loser’s party. Third parties exist and influence the two major parties even if they don’t defeat them. And why should this be seen as mere consolation? The point is to shift government in particular directions—it doesn’t matter what agent sits in office during the shift.

It is argued that the third party involvement that took away votes from one of the two majors parties has only unified people on either side of some culture divide in effort to defeat the other big party. In the 2004 democratic primary, the goal was to “beat Bush,” rather than “materialize jobs,” “reform foreign policy” or “improve education.” The 2003 California recall election that ousted the unpopular Democratic governor, Gray Davis, was won, not by the Republican whom everyone agreed to be most qualified for the job, but rather by the Republican whom everyone agreed to be the most capable of getting elected. The result of this condition is said to be a constant tit-for-tat where the policies are neglected for the sake of acquiring and maintaining power.

In reality, the policies are not neglected and the fervency witnessed in the struggle for power is proof. At hand in this supposed two-party struggle are several serious issues for which policies are still implemented to direct. The fact that there are only two fronts in this struggle may concern the modern American who encourages individualized society and diversity, but those truly interested in public policy and government of a society and those happy with a party system at all find the current system to be quite sufficient.

The two sides concerned here are conservatism and liberalism. Now, synonymous with each word are several other words including the mysterious “republican” and “democratic” making these terms ambiguous themselves. Long-assumed definitions of each don’t help the matter either as they too are inaccurate. The assumptions are that liberalism stands for progressive, forward thinking and conservatism stands for reactionary, backward thinking. Since establishment of these standards, the idea of forward has come to mean good and backward has come to mean bad, complicating the situation. Is forward necessarily good? What is the forward-thinking person moving forward to? Some might be moving forward to disaster and in this case, the movement would certainly not be good. And what about the right and left in all this? Why all this talk about those directions as well, as if forward and backward aren’t enough? Dizziness is an understandable consequence.

To straighten this out, one must look back two and a quarter centuries to the birth of America. In 1776, the idea of the democratic-republic—a government ruled by its people through professional politicians—was novel. Indeed, when George Washington was voted president of the new United States, he was the first elected president ever in the world. The breakthrough and American Revolution as a whole was the product of one great movement of the previous century and the Enlightenment: liberalism.

In the 18th century, though, liberalism wasn’t the same kind of liberalism it is today. The concept behind the two kinds of liberalism is the same—freedom—but due to a different perspective on that concept, the resultant principles and policies were dissimilar. Indeed, the policies of 18th century liberalism were opposite the policies of 20th century liberalism. Whereas the former sought to remove governmental interference in the lives of its citizens, whether it was in the elimination of tax or the reduction of military duty, the latter sought to increase interference, seen in the increase of tax and social security programs. Liberalism’s shift is a complex matter. Here it is sufficient to acknowledge the shift in itself. That is because the common understanding is that the policies conservatives conserve are the policies of 18th century liberalism, or classical liberalism. Neatly, those policies—free market, limited government—coincide with those of the Republican Party, and so, Republicans are considered conservative. Likewise, the policies of 20th century liberalism, modern liberalism—welfare, high taxes—coincide with those of the Democratic Party.

As liberalism means something different today than it meant 200 years ago, so too does conservatism. In the late 18th century, while the liberals were busy granting universal rights, the conservatives were attempting to maintain some form of the existing social system—aristocracy and monarchy—where power and rights were reserved for the state. Conservatives of 200 years ago were attempting to keep power in the state just as liberals are attempting to do today. It could be said that modern conservatives promote classical liberalism and modern liberals promote classical conservatism. It should be noted that somewhere along the way, right and left flipped as well, or (more accurately) failed to flip when the conservatism and liberalism did. In 1789, when the French National Assembly convened for the first time and the commoners were allowed participation in government, they sat on the left while the nobles sat on the right. That way, the liberals were on the left and the conservatives were on the right and this is how it stands today despite the flipping of liberalism and conservatism.

Other factors remain as well and so the shift isn’t as absurd as it seems. This is where the original concepts of democratic and republican become relevant. Since democracy is the direct vote of all citizens, it was the impulse of the commoners in the 1789 Assembly. As such, the left was devoted to democracy, corresponding to the modern-day Democratic left. The same goes for the Republican right. Two hundred years ago, the right of the political spectrum called for some form of representative government, a republic.

But here lies what might be a contradiction. Conceptually, a democracy has a more limited government than a republic and certainly no state, which is an entity independent from the people. The people are the government and so there can be no state. On the other hand, a republic requires some form of a government independent from the people. This is because it requires representatives. This body of representatives may do what the people want, but it is still independent from the people. The contradiction is that the lower-case democrats promote a limited government while the upper-case Democrats promote an ever-growing state. The reverse is true for the right: The lower-case republicans favor at least some sort of state while the upper-case Republicans favor the shrinking of government.

To make matters more confusing, it appears as though another shift in trends and words is upon us. Since establishment of these standards (are they established?), the Democrats (or are they democrats?) have built the welfare state and directed the American political climate for the majority of the last century. As such, a promotion of Democratic doctrines at the beginning of the new century might not be as progressive as it was 100 years ago, but backward. Indeed, the Democrat looks to conserve policies and power that he maintained most of the 20th century. Contrarily, starting with Barry Goldwater and later Ronald Reagan, the Republicans have been the ones changing things up. They are who display “forward” thinking as we consider the role of the welfare state or even the nation sate in the 21st century. With this being the case, it would be reasonable to switch the associations of liberalism to Republicanism and conservatism to Democratic.

Of course the reform is unlikely and it is not only because the idea of the conservative Republican right is so ingrained and thus hard to erase. With reason, most Republicans still consider themselves conservative and most Democrats, liberal. In reality, the policies Republicans endorse are conservative and the same goes for Democrats with liberalism. The problem lies when the ideas of conservative and liberalism, republican and democratic get tied up with either forward or backward. Sure, conserving something implies holding onto something, but why must that thing be only behind us? Liberalism may seek to change the current state of things, but why is it assumed that it is changed to something good? It shouldn’t be. What frustrates politics more is the notion that what is new is necessarily good. It simply isn’t true. Newly established trends of suicide bombings and school shootings prove this tragically. Contrarily, ancient institutions of family and education must be considered good.

Still, the assumption is that newest is best. Electronics buffs readily attest and pop music fans hardly remember last year’s songs; much less do they know the Beatles; much less do they consider Mendelssohn. The latter is so last millennium. Nowhere is this truer than with science—oddly. Science is where the public cries for the new most rabidly. The public is assured that science, in unison with technology and medicine, is how our lives get better. This happens because with every passing month comes a new advance based on the accumulation of other advances, tested and assured. Anything that came before the newest advance might be good, but it is outdated and probably wrong. Old institutions look primitive and we laugh at the practices devised to satisfy them—what were they thinking using mercury as medicine? This is to suggest that our descendants won’t look at our behavior and laugh uncontrollably. Reality television?

Political thought is victim to this flaw of scientism as well, mainly because of the scientism of politics. Around 1850, when liberalism was experiencing its great shift, it became popular to apply the scientific method to the social condition to find out what was wrong with government and how to fix it. It is reasonable to do this. Science is reasonable and using a logical method to hash out the problems of the most important of man’s institutions is appropriate. As a result of this scientism, political postures took on a different look. The assumption with conservatism is that its proponents are missing something—the latest and most advanced something—as if they haven’t considered modern liberalism. It is likened to a rocket scientist neglecting Einstein’s Relativity and focusing only on Newtonian physics. One mustn’t neglect Marx and focus only on Locke.

But just as other scientific “advances” may or may not lead us up the right path, it is possible for the scientific government to lead us astray as well. Around the time of the Soviet experiment, scientists found it was helpful to put highly toxic lead in things, gasoline being the most obvious, canned food containers and paint included. Throughout the 20th century, the civilized world struggled with both experiments with deadly results. Just as with lead, the USSR was ultimately removed though we still deal with the effects of both.

The fact is that science is a very useful tool—with limits. No one can deny man’s great ability through science, but it requires a set of true premises on which to base its logical conclusions. When it comes to the government of society, the premises are vast. Frankly, Marx and others didn’t look at all the premises. The case of leaded gasoline plowed through the same predicament. Scientists had a problem—impossibly loud automobile engines—and the desire to eliminate that problem. Finding that leaded gasoline accomplished this task, they pushed to add the element to fuel and assumed the problem was solved. Of course, it was, but created another problem. As workers at leaded gasoline plants began to fall ill, it became evident that what helped lower the noise of car engines was burned into the sky and inhaled and consumed by human beings, entering their blood streams, damaging just about every vital system in the body. When science is focused on one particular thing, it is possible to damage many others.

Thus, when a conservative rejects Marxism, it is quite possible that the reason is not just neglect of his “latest findings,” but rather, it could be a more comprehensive perspective. While Marxists simply look at particular components of life, namely food, shelter, employment, security and equality, they disregard components as important such as self-reliance, volition, productivity, creativity and justice. Indeed, they cannot possibly regard these latter components as fundamental elements of the scientism of government dictate. Marx suggested that free-market capitalism had a necessary consequence of an oppressed lower class and oppressive upper class as if the citizens of such a government had no choice, no will of their own, much less an innate virtue. To him, the masses were like machines that would automatically do what benefited only them given the opportunity. Capitalism’s display of material discrepancy between the rich and poor was the result of the more powerful winning and inherently weaker losing in this mechanical society. Marx and others saw it as unnecessary. If material wellbeing is all that matters, then a society can easily distribute that well-being to everyone—no need for the struggle.

The above explanation, though brief, can be used to understand the true reason for the distinction between liberalism and conservatism. The concern of modern liberals is the material well-being of its citizens. While the conservative does not neglect this concern, he does not focus only on it. He sees man’s ambition, his aim, his purpose as equally important. He also notes that when the liberal focuses on the material well-being of man and tries to arrange a socialist government accordingly, other components of life are harmed, not the least of which is man’s ambition.

With this in mind, we can formulate a vocabulary that isn’t as transient as the former one while still using the same words. Liberalism seeks liberty. This liberty can be regarded as the material well-being of man as material well-being grants the ability for man to do things. Having several thousands of dollars handy is very helpful when one wants to go to Hawai’i or start a bakery, etc. To see freedom this way is quite understandable, but it is unacceptable. It is understandable because the physical elements around us are very obvious and affect us immediately. Their relevance is underscored by the fact that we need a sound physical environment to flourish. But this is not all there is to life. The fact that one can take with them the ideas in this essay without having the essay itself is proof that there is more to it than paper and ink. The fact that one can take those ideas and invent new ones as a result means that focusing only on the physical is at least an incomplete survey.

When man is born into this world of highly physical things, it is all very odd with reason. A child does not readily understand it all, taking him years to begin to grasp this complex realm. At first, his ambition is to survive, to grow, to learn, to produce and create. As he moves toward that understanding, he is likely to abandon that volition and get wrapped up in his minor accomplishments. Once he has reached a certain point in development, living a life that luxuriates the senses seems reasonable. This becomes more concrete a propensity throughout mankind especially as through science, we improve our standard of living, make accommodating our environment, defeat natural hindrances and hone in on and exaggerate life’s pleasures. All the while, preserving man’s initial volition becomes more and more difficult.

This volition, this will of man to grow and produce and create is what the conservative attempts to conserve. It is not necessary to reject the physical pleasures and the magnificent accomplishments of the sciences and arts in order to do this. Indeed, the sciences and arts, etc., play a significant role in preserving that creative essence of man. The conservative just sees those institutions for what they are—means to the goal and not the goal themselves. The conservative conserves the aim of life as well as focusing on the means and that is what differentiates him from the liberal, who focuses only on the means and discards the import of the goal.

With this determination, the debate can proceed between the right and left, the Republicans and Democrats, the conservatives and liberals. Questions populate my mind already. Now, at least, they are not questions implying “I’m right, you’re wrong,” or the vocabulary with which we are arguing; they are questions on the significance of public policy, individualism and how men can interact with civility, virtuousness and productivity. They are questions of freedom and responsibility and man’s relationship to God.