Charles Shiflett Column March 27, 2005

Here's The Real Left/Right Difference

If you were asked to define the differences between conservatives and liberals, many of you would no
doubt come up with a lengthy list. Conservatives are pro-life, against gay marriage, are for lower taxes,
and favor smaller government… liberals are pro-choice, support gay rights, want to raise taxes, and
favor larger government.

Now we know these stereotypes don't always fit, but they are fairly close generalizations. However,
there is a much deeper philosophical difference that more fully explains the political divide between
right and left.

See if you can guess the political persuasion whose adherents would most likely fit the following
profile. "You're compassionate and deeply care about the plight of minorities, women, the less
fortunate, the disabled, and other groups." Did you notice that last word?

That's the difference. Liberals tend to think in terms of groups, while conservatives frame their
philosophy around the individual.

At election time, listen to the left. Virtually every issue is defined by its impact on some group. It
doesn't matter what might be in the best long-term interest of our state or nation… or in the best
interest of the individual. Liberals are masters at giving certain groups false hope in return for their
votes.

Democrats will raise the minimum wage for unskilled laborers… provide free health insurance for the
working poor… increase social services for the elderly… protect minorities… the list goes on. Of
course their political promises are just that… empty promises.

Liberals believe it is the purpose of government to take from the individual to give to their favored
groups. Conservatives believe that individuals have a right to own and protect their property from the
plundering masses.

I don't begrudge anyone who accumulates financial resources. In a free-market capitalist economy
such as ours, there will be winners and losers, but the process of wealth creation trickles down to us
all. Regardless of your career choice, someone somewhere is purchasing the goods or services you
provide. If you were seeking employment, would you ask a poor person or wealthy person for a job?

The Unites States grew to become the world's greatest superpower primarily because of the
protections granted individuals in our Constitution. Without private property rights and individual liberty,
we would have become just another socialist second-rate nation.

I cringe every time I hear a liberal proclaim that the U.S. Constitution is a living, breathing document
that must change to fit changing times. That's code for "we need more liberal judges who will invent
new meanings for the previously clearly defined ideals expressed by our founding fathers."

The drafters of our sacred founding document were fairly clever people. They provided a mechanism to
change our Constitution to fit a changing nation. That method is to amend the Constitution.

The founders made the adoption of new amendments difficult. They worried that national passions
could be easily inflamed and irreparable damage done to the nation if the process of changing the
Constitution were too easy.

Of course activist judges and politicians have become adept at "creating" new constitutional meanings
by fiat, thus ignoring original intent. As a conservative, I favor a strict interpretation of the Constitution.

I contend that Social Security, the U.S. Department of Education, federally funded housing, Medicare,
and many other federal programs are unconstitutional. The fact that the majority of Americans would
say I'm crazy for believing this is proof of just how far we've drifted from our founders' vision.

If the majority of Americans feel we as a nation should be involved in operating programs such as
Social Security, then let's amend the Constitution to provide for federal involvement in that aspect of
our lives. It's that simple. No chicanery… no smoke and mirrors… no judicial fiat.

Like liberals, conservatives are compassionate too. We just believe that private individuals can provide
for those in need more effectively than government.

Of course that opens conservatives up to attacks by those in the left who would accuse us of being
against senior citizens, children, the poor, minorities, the infirmed, and any other "group" that liberals
can exploit for political gain. It makes for effective election fodder, but it cheapens the election
process. And that's the real difference between those on the left and the right.