What Does it Mean to be Conservative or Liberal?
the abuse of fine terms for fine individuals and groups
In everyday conversation, those who consider themselves to be conservative call anyone, who disagrees with them as “liberal.” Those who consider themselves to be liberal call anyone, who disagrees with them to be “conservative.” In other words, these two terms, “liberal” and “conservative,” are used as slurs.
The actual meaning of these two terms changes depending upon the field. Consider the following fields:
#1 = Social/Moral/Behavioral Field #2 = Judicial/Legal Field #3 = Economic Field #4 = Political Field #5 = Religious Field
In each of these five fields, the two terms, “conservative,” and “liberal,” form a spectrum. We usually place “conservative” on the right of the spectrum and “liberal” on the left. A spectrum ought to in itself stop us from slinging these two terms onto those, who disagree with us.
Allow me as a “moderate, independent, non-committal free-thinker” to take a stab at defining “liberal” and “conservative” in each of these four fields.
#1 = Social/Moral/Behavioral Field A “conservative” believes in and follows a moral code of right and wrong behavior. Such a “conservative” anchors a moral code in natural law or divine law or religious law or national/international law. A “conservative” believes that such law is objective and universally apparent. A conservative would label anyone, who is more gray than black and white as a “liberal,” as someone, who is immoral, socially unacceptable and behaviorally inappropriate.
A “liberal” also believes in and follows a moral code of right and wrong behavior. A “liberal” may view the moral code to be regionally/nationally/culturally specific. Thus, a “liberal" is willing to live with fuzzy lines and gray areas. A liberal would label anyone, who is more black and white than gray as a “conservative,” who is hard-nosed, intractable, rigid, unrealistic and legalistic, if not unloving.
#2 = Judicial/Legal Field A “conservative” in the judicial/legal field believes in interpreting the law according to original intent. Presently, the Supreme Court of the United States of America is comprised of a majority of conservative justices. The majority is “conservative” because it leans toward original intent of the US Constitution. The one glaring exception to this rule, (which I learned from reading Justice Antonin Scalia’s writing) is the conservative view of the Second Amendment - the right to bear arms. Scalia, one of the most conservative US Supreme Court justices of our time, acknowledged that the original intent of the Second Amendment is the formation of a militia, not the right of an individual citizen to privately own a gun. Ironically, guns rights has become a plank in the conservative platform, though it is nearly the only exception to legal interpretation via original intent.
A “liberal” in the judicial/legal field believes in a dynamic/progressive interpretation of the law. A liberal US Supreme Court justice takes a vow to uphold the US Constitution and interprets it, leaning heavily upon the precedent of case law - how the US Constitutional law and courts have applied the law to specific situations and eras. The one glaring exception to this rule, (which I learned from reading Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, fast friend of Justice Antonin Scalia) is the liberal view of the Second Amendment - the right to bear arms. Ginsburg, one of the more liberal US Supreme Court justices of our time, acknowledged that she held to the original intent of the Second Amendment, the formation of a militia, even though she believed that the law was dynamic and progressive! (She and Scalia, with their families would share vacations during which they would hunt and target shoot.) Ironically, gun control has become a plank in the liberal platform, though it is nearly the only exception to legal interpretation via dynamic/progressive interpretation.
Do you see how these two terms are used differently in the legal/judicial field than in the social/moral/behavioral field?
Presently, some of the US Supreme Court justices, are less vested in original intent. They pose as “conservative,” only as a result of widespread confusion as to what is “conservative,” and “liberal.” For example, the US Supreme Court is to rise above political affiliation. The political affiliation of a justice does not make her/him a conservative or a liberal. His/her interpretive view of the law makes her/him a liberal or a conservative. (Recently, the US Supreme Court has become politicized, and it is a crime! Stay tuned; political affiliation usually proves an unreliable indication of how a justice will decide on any given case of law.)
#3 = Economic Field A “conservative” in the field of economics is typically bully about saving and against spending. A “conservative” is a proponent of low risk, decrying high risk investment. (My maternal grandfather was extremely to the right on the spectrum, advising me to invest in US Treasury Bonds, and never in publicly traded stocks.) A conservative would be against debt on every level. Ironically, economically conservative US citizens are proponents of increasing military defense spending by the USA federal government.
Many confuse differing economic systems as being “liberal,” or “conservative.” Conservative US citizens are largely capitalists and so they label “socialists,” or “communists” as “liberal.” This is a violent misuse of the two terms. Many European socialists are so conservative, that they are “fascists,” (You know, the extreme political right.) Many Chinese communists are actually conservative in economics. Most of them are impoverished, but the 2% who are wealthy are way over to the right economically. Chinese by culture are “conservative.” It’s North Americans, USA citizens, who play the lottery and take investment risks, mainly due to their amazing cash flow. Strapped for cash socialists buy cheap booze and impoverished communists purchase rice. So, who is conservative or liberal?
The “liberal” in the field of economics is bully about governmental and communal security towards a comfortable lifestyle. And so, if the government or the larger community can provide such quality of lifestyle, then the liberal is willing to pay into and receive such benefits. At the date of this post, a conservative US Senator, Josh Hawley (GOP) is pushing legislation to hand-out $600.00 to every qualifying US taxpayer from the proceeds generated by the USA Tariff profits. A true conservative would say, “All proceeds should pay down our national debt.”
Are you willing to take personal risk in investing in the Stock Market?
Are you willing to pay taxes for safe roads, beautiful green spaces, and reliable education? Do you support the funding of Veteran Affairs and military pensions, one of the most socialistic components of the USA federal budget? (An individual serves in the US military for four years and receives, for the rest of her/his life benefits and compensation - that’s socialism, not capitalism.) Capitalism is the system in which a person generates and offers a product and/or service for a profit. Socialism is the system in which a person is rewarded beyond actual production and sales of product and services. When the government awards benefits beyond the free and fair exchange of product and services, the payout is socialism, not capitalism. It’s a fact.
Can you see how these two terms, used in the legal/judicial field and in the social/moral/behavioral field and economic field differ?
#4 = Political Field A “conservative” in the field of politics should mean one, who is morally, judicially and economically conservative, as defined in the above paragraphs. But what “conservative” means today is party affiliation. In the USA, if you are a member of the Republican Party, then you are considered a “conservative.” And if you are a member of the Democratic Party, then you are a “liberal.” This is an unfortunate development. To be politically conservative means that you are “small government.” To be politically liberal means that you are “big government.” “Politically conservative” meant in an era now gone, that you were States’ Right over Federal government control. You would value local control over federal control. Presently, the “conservative” federal government in 2025, declaring marshal law, bringing federal military forces into states and cities without their consent, is creating a fuzzing line. Conservatives are confused, because the Federal government is promising to provide law and order. But politically, it is doing so, in a most “liberal” fashion. It is violating local, individual rights of governance.
In Potter Valley, CA, Pacific Gas and Electric (PGE) announced that it would significantly reduce the water flow used by farmers and ranchers in the valley and all the way down the Russian River, through California wine country. California Governor Newsome, has made an ass of himself, endorsing the cut-off and endorsing the removal of the dams at Lake Pillsbury. Thankfully, the federal Department of the Interior (DOI), has barred these actions resulting in a reprieve for numerous farmers and ranchers. That’s big government. That’s increased federal tax dollars protecting the rights of citizens. The intrusion of the DOI into and over states rights is a “liberal” move for the sake of many, who would identify as “conservative.”
Do you see how it’s advantageous for liberals and conservatives to work together?
A “liberal” in the field of politics is one who supports individual freedom and governmental support of it. Every taxpayer should provide roads, systems, infrastructure, programs and benefits for all citizens and residents towards an equitable lifestyle for all. Such an ideal demands a big government at the federal and state level in the USA. Politically, a liberal supports rights and benefits for every individual residing within the USA national borders, regardless of any classification. (Ironically, in our lifetime, member of the Democratic Party and US President Barak Obama, has deported more non-USA citizens than any other in US history.) All to say, the rhetoric and media sound bites do not determine whether or not someone in political office is “liberal” or “conservative.” It comes down to their actions and results.
#5 = Religious Field A religious “conservative” believes that his/her Holy Scriptures are the very revelation of the divine Being, given for the direction of daily life. A religious “liberal” believes that his/her Holy Scriptures are a preservation of cultural, folk history. Remember, there is a spectrum.
A religious “liberal” may have as strong a faith and practice as a
”conservative.” The devotion and spiritual intensity are not the distinguishing factors. Conservatives believe that God is actually speaking to them, while liberals believe that God is actually preserving for them a history. Conservatives are fixated upon the factual details of the history, while the liberals are fixated upon the story and message of the history.
Too much division, judgment and condemnation have been committed by religious conservatives and liberals sparring with one another. Too much polarization has resulted.
The late Dr. Timothy Keller of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in Manhattan, New York, regularly preached the gospel, good for “conservative” and “liberal.” He would say, “The gospel transforms the thinking and lifestyle of both conservative and liberal.” He would preach towards the evaporation of the liberal/conservative divide, proclaiming the gospel to both, to the entire spectrum. He preached the gospel to the moralist and to the libertine. The gospel message of the cross of Jesus Christ, the atonement and forgiveness of sins, appeals to the moralist, who is in bondage to his/her breaking of God’s law. The gospel message of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, our assurance of new and eternal life, appeals to the libertine in search of freedom.
In other words, the gospel of Jesus Christ is good for the conservative and the liberal, transforming both into citizens of the kingdom of heaven. The conservative believes that the liberal is lost. The liberal believes that the conservative is lost. The gospel, the good news of Jesus Christ is that all are lost and can be found in the love of God through Jesus Christ. As the Apostle Paul wrote, “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God….but God, who is rich in mercy made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved.” (Romans 3 and Ephesians 2).
Do you see how the religious field differs from these other fields when it comes to defining liberal and conservative? Both conservative and liberal pilgrims could be on the same path, pursuing God and his righteousness. Their tires hit different potholes and they may stray on different rabbit trails, yet they return to the path of following Jesus Christ, who has blazed a trail into the heavenly Father’s love forever.
If you are a liberal and see a conservative straying on a rabbit trail, would you not lovingly seek to return him/her to the straight and narrow path of God? If you are a conservative, would you not do the same for a liberal? If you do not believe in the existence of God and his holy gospel, would you not entertain conversation with a friend, who does believe and follow? If you do believe in God and his gospel, would you not engage your friend, who does not believe and follow, in a conversation towards a better faith and path? Whatever happened to open conversations? Are you open-minded or close-minded? Are you reactive or proactive?
Culturally, liberals claim to be open-minded but are actually close-minded. Conservatives typically are dogmatic, unapologetic of being close-minded. Both can choose to listen, engage and entertain. This is what it means to be open-minded. It is far too easy to label another person as “conservative” or “liberal.” It is more difficult, but more rewarding to cross the line, listen and learn from the one, who thinks and lives differently than you do.