In our times, the meaning of liberalism and conservatism is . . . well, confusing, even contradictory. According to Webster, conservatism is “a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change.” So how does this definition explain why many conservatives want to reduce the role of government, eliminate several cabinet level departments and the IRS, emphasize polarizing policies that would reverse decades-long practices designed to enhance women’s health care and promote citizens’ voting? To be fair, let’s see how Webster treats liberalism: “a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of man, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties. . . in economics, emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard.” So does this characterization help us understand why many liberals support punitive sentencing such as three-strike laws (versus rehabilitation), an extensively regulated economy, and the Fed’s manipulation of the money market? Perhaps what these definitions do reveal is that Webster no longer reflects the contemporary sense of these “isms.” If you, my reader, will allow me, I would like to simplify the matter, drawing from an encapsulation of historical perspectives. In the most generic sense, liberals have always stood for human progress, while conservatives have been steadfast in the preservation of our human heritage. If we could start with this premise, we would probably all find a common ground. When desperate ideological forces work together, you have the constitutional convention of 1787. When they don’t, you have civil war.

When I speak of “common ground” in our times, the last thing that comes to mind is Republican/Democrat compromise. After all, Republicans are composed of conservatives, moderates, neo-conservatives, tea-partiers, libertarians, and far-right “radicals.” Democrats are no less uniform since they comprise liberals, blue-dogs, red-state democrats, progressives, and far-left “radicals.” Many of these designees resist the labels affixed to them by opponents: liberal Democrats now prefer to be called “progressive,” while conservative Republicans project Janus-like facades, as very conservative in primaries and moderate in general elections. Neither party member wants to be called “radical,” even though radical policies proliferate—like sequestration, preemptive war, drone strikes against sovereign states, secret courts, the internationally condemned detention of enemy combatants without trial and/or sentencing, and the refusal to pay our national debt (as in 2011 and now threatened anew this year). The current confluence of these liberal/conservative parties has produced policies that would make our founding fathers question the relevance of our Constitution. When I consider how often I hear that memorable document misquoted, I cringe and can only conclude it is so maligned for not having been read. Or worse, it is being used as a bogus authority for policies of dubious or even insidious value.

Maybe this blog is nothing more than a rant born of frustration. My lone logical resolve may well be a refusal to be labeled liberal or conservative. Either label prohibits honest dialogue for each admits diverse definitions and irrational arguments. It has been said that we tend to believe whatever we want to believe. It seems to me that party affiliation in the context I’ve drawn here is a box too enclosed for any critical mind. Should party loyalty continue to supersede reason, then we will have all succumbed to “The State of -Ism.”