Monty Pelerin's World

Most people consider themselves liberal or conservative without fully understanding the assumptions upon which these beliefs rest. Parental beliefs or a choice of one of the two major political parties is often as deep as their understanding goes. Another motive is driven by self-interest — which party will benefit me the most.

To these folks, their political philosophy is selected on a truly thoughtless basis. For some, it parallels how they chose a favorite sports team — I root for Team X because my parents did or I live closest to them or some other equally innocuous method. For others, it is akin to a young child judging relatives on the basis of who provided the best Christmas gifts.

Thomas Sowell

Few truly fully explore either the implications of accepting political beliefs or the tenets upon which they rest. The origins of liberalism and conservatism are difficult to explore. To understand them means getting away from “American Idol” and other air-headed pursuits and reading. In other words, it requires some effort beyond that of mind-numbing diversions that pass for today’s entertainment and time consumption. It also involves some danger, because it forces one to explore the underlying principles behind both political philosophies.

Such a “scientific” approach breaks complex political beliefs down into a series of assumptions regarding the nature of man.  Thomas Sowell’s Conflict of Visions does just that. It utilizes history and philosophy to identify the underlying assumptions upon which both liberalism and conservatism rest. It is highly recommended as a book for those who wish to pursue such an adventure. The first few chapters are all that is required for you to understand what you implicitly assume by taking one side or the other.

Here is an approach from a different angle from American Thinker’s Paul Shlichta. His essay approaches the issue from the influence that religious beliefs play in determining which side of the spectrum you fall:

The Roots of Liberalism and Conservatism

By Paul Shlichta

Conservative writers sometimes complain about the obstinacy of liberals — how they persist in their beliefs despite the flagrant misdeeds of their politicians and the collapse of welfare states, as is now happening in Europe.  Since false conclusions are often the result of false initial assumptions, I tried to find the cause of this persistence by tracing back to the roots of liberal and conservative thought.

I concluded that conservatism is based on the concept that “all men are equal but not necessarily good,” while liberalism is derived from the idea that “all men are good but not necessarily equal.”

Conservatism is the logical consequence of two Christian doctrines: universal equal rights and original sin.  As Wikipedia puts it:

The concept of universal human rights was not known in the ancient world, not in Ancient Greece and Rome, Ancient India, Ancient China, nor among the Hebrews; slavery, for instance, was justified in ancient times as a natural condition.

The concept of universal equal rights is implicit in the New Testament and was discussed by Augustine and Thomas Aquinas.  However, few organized attempts were made to put the doctrine into practice until the issue of slavery in the Spanish colonies induced Dominican missionary Bartolomé de Las Casas to plead Continue reading »

Share/Save