An Explanation of Origin and Conflict
As we explore these two philosophies, it will be valuable to understand the different ways in which the terms are used. First, the use of these two words describes polar opposites. You cannot be a liberal and a conservative when referencing the same subject or condition, neither is there such a thing as a “moderate” as it might relate to being somewhere in between. You are either liberal or conservative and being even one percent liberal makes you a liberal, not a conservative. I also wish to say that there are two ways in which the terms liberal and conservative are used, since that is a key to understanding the conversation. The first use is that of a current cultural reference or condition. This would describe the terms as they relate to a current condition, be that political or otherwise. It is possible to be temporarily liberal and traditionally conservative. I will explain this as we get more into the origin of the words and how they relate to our world.
For the most part, I want to address the terms’ foundational and thus perpetual reference, not their transitory uses.
Definitions
Liberal: The root of this word comes from the Latin liber, which means “to change the condition or status of.” Thus, the word liberate means to free something which is captive. To describe someone as “liberal” is to communicate that they believe in changing some condition or status.
Conservative: The root of this word comes from the Latin conservãre, meaning to preserve the condition or status.
Progressive: The root of this word comes from the Latin prōgressus, progress, which means to advance and is often used to imply making an improvement. For instance, it would be unconventional to say you are progressing to a worse condition.
Natural Law: Those sets of laws that govern the universe and are immutable and nonnegotiable. These might be the Law of Gravity, Law of Sowing and Reaping, Law of Attraction, Law of Motion, Law of Relativity, Law of Polarity, Law of Relativity, Law of Cause and Effect, etc. Some natural laws are physical, some are economic. All spiritual principles are based on economic laws. In the Bible, the authors use economic parables as illustrations when explaining spiritual principles. This is with reason, since those spiritual truths and economic laws are linked. As stated, these laws cannot be broken. They can be temporarily overcome by applying enough energy, but eventually they will prevail over those contradictory efforts. An example of this is the Law of Gravity as it applies to flight. The plane can take off and fly, but eventually it will run out of the fuel that keeps it aloft, and then it will fall. The Law of Gravity can be temporarily overcome, but that only proves that it is unbreakable.
Democracy: The root of this word comes from the Latin dēmocratia and the Greek dēmo, which mean equal or equivalent. As it is commonly used, the implication is that each person deserves a vote and the majority’s desire determines the path forward. Democracy is one of those concepts that is honorable in its intentions but invariably evil in its application. It inevitably becomes the means by which the majority oppress a minority. Mikhail Gorbachev, the Soviet leader, stated clearly that Socialism and Democracy were indivisible and the path to Communism was the incremental movement from Democracy, to Socialism, then Communism. As is often the case, it is not the intent of the thing that determines its use, it is the intent of the user. That is the key and should be kept in mind as we unfold the rest of this conversation: Evil leaders often use good-sounding intent to sell their victims to endorse a means to their destruction.
One of the confusions in applying the terms Liberal and Conservative lies in the differentiation between the classic use of the terms and how they might be used to relate to a current condition. For example, the term Left Leaning is usually applied to liberalism and Right Leaning to conservativism. This might be situational depending on the condition in vogue at the time. If someone in the communist Soviet society advocated a shift to Capitalism, they would be a liberal. They wanted to change the situation. In contrast, in the universal sense of the word, they would be Conservative, since they are proposing a realignment with Natural Law. One good example is the use of the term NAZI to describe someone who is thought to be “right wing.” This is a misappropriation of the term, since the acronym NAZI literally means Nationalsozialist, the National Socialist Workers Party, by definition a democratic organization. The discussion is confused by the machinations of the political scene in Germany, but this is a perfect example of how a charismatic leader sold a large group of people one thing and gave them another, to the point where the majority actually killed millions in the minority. There is nothing conservative about NAZIs from a Universal alignment standpoint, they are and were liberals.
The Argument and Origin of Conflict
The human conflict between liberalism and conservatism is rooted in how a person conducts their affairs in relationship to natural law. Stated simply, the concept of conservatism, in its foundational reference, is the intention to conduct the business of life in accordance with natural law. A conservative believes that the way to be successful is to align their life with how the Universe works. This is a logical alignment since the laws are immutable and nonnegotiable.
Conversely, a liberal is constantly working against natural law, albeit often unknowingly since they are usually unaware that there are such things. This effort is often rooted in their desire to avoid pain, suffering, or some other undesirable fact of life (especially for those living in contradiction to Nature). Liberalism is an emotional response to a Universe that is unwavering in its determination to enforce its laws; laws which often conflict with the pleasure or ease-of-existence humans desire. I am reminded of the credit card commercial showing people on vacation and encouraging its use because “you deserve it.” A completely illogical conclusion, but an understandable desire. Liberals want to believe that if they only work hard enough, care deeply enough, and usually spend enough money, they can overcome the effects of Natural Law on their lives. When confronted with the fact that Liberalism has never worked, they always reply that it just hasn’t been done enough, spent enough money, or done correctly, but that if you vote them into office they will get it right this time.
There is a darker side of Liberalism. That evil resides in the persons who understand the futility of liberalism, yet use its emotional attraction in human nature to convince others to support them as leaders. The narrative usually follows the same line: if you support them, they will solve your problems, so you won’t have to conform to Natural Law; you can simply enjoy the life you want. You will be smarter, healthier, and life will be easier. Invariably that “solution” comes with increased centralization, regulation and taxation, which always benefits the leader at the eventual detriment of the population. The problem is that they can usually keep life nice for a while, until the stimulus runs out. Remember, overcoming Natural Law requires applying energy, and money, which are compounded over time by any effort to perform in perpetuity. You cannot continue to borrow from the future to support temporarily overcoming Nature, it is unsustainable. Since Natural Law is unbreakable, such liberal efforts as socialism and communism always fail, leaving the weakened dependent populations bereft of the ability to survive. Socialists sell equality, yet always provide the opposite.
The other fatal issue with liberalism is that it doesn’t reproduce. Women in liberal societies always become infertile and the society dies. At the fall of the Soviet Union, there were more than 10,000 empty towns. Men stopped working, women stopped having babies, and the public debt grew.
The Origin
For some, this part of the discussion may prove to be a hurdle, but if you follow the narrative I believe you will find the value of the illustration. The following is my belief based on fifty years of research and practice, you are free to believe as you wish.
The Bible is an amazing work of literature. It is the compiled recording of thousands of years of trial, error, success, and failure. I believe that the Bible exists on several parallel levels. It is literature, history, and a description of how to live a successful life. For many there is a fourth parallel, a spiritual one. For the purposes of this paper, you may decide to set that one aside, although I believe it is highly related to the other three.
The first story in the Bible is about the Garden of Eden. First, I want to be clear that I am not a literalist. I do not believe it is a historical narrative. I believe that this story is an allegory, intended to explain principles.
In the story, a man and a woman live in paradise. Part of sustaining their perfect, successful lives was based on the advice not to eat a specific fruit, the fruit that would open their eyes and give them an understanding of “good and evil.” In other words, they would see other ways of living that do not align with their success in Eden. God, the righteous being, understood that these ways are attractive but destructive.
In that narrative, an evil-being convinces one of the partners that she can be a God if she simply eats from the forbidden tree’s fruit. Please set aside the gender conversation; it is irrelevant to this lesson. For those inclined to be offended and side-tracked by the female being the target of the Evil One’s attack, there might be a message. However, perhaps it will be more productive to relieve gender anxiety by keeping in mind that the Evil One was described as a male and move on to the lesson. Again, this is a story used to explain principles. It is a parable that people can understand; used to explain economic and spiritual truths by an example.
There are several important concepts here. First, there is good and evil, right and wrong. That would be in keeping with natural law. Look at evil as behaviors and beliefs that oppose Natural Law and result in failure, and righteousness as those that result in success. There are right ways and wrong ways to live in alignment with the Universe. Exploring the wrong ways, even if enjoyable or pleasurable in the moment, is unsustainable and will ultimately lead to defeat. The clear message is that even if it sounds good, that doesn’t mean you should do it.
Secondly, humans are genetically predisposed to seek the easiest path, and to socially and emotionally respond to charismatic leaders. Those leaders often abuse, mislead, and betray them for their own benefit. Regardless of the philosophy you subscribe to, evolution, creation, or intelligent design, these facts are obvious to any student of history. Again, the story illustrates that the evil being obviously did not have Adam and Eve’s best interest at heart. Of course, Eve didn’t see him as evil. He was beautiful, charismatic, and convincing in his encouragement of how wonderful life would be if Eve were like God. The fruit was beautiful, it looked so good, and she thought it would be wonderful to be so knowledgeable. All she had to do to achieve nirvana was to follow the evil-being’s encouragement and eat some. I believe this illustration isn’t about the fruit but a choice of whom we follow.
This story illustrates the start of Liberalism, and it connects to a spiritual truth. Liberalism, at its root, is the belief that if we work hard enough, care passionately enough, and spend enough money, we can defeat Natural Law. That would make us Gods, upper case G.
That is the third important concept of the story, the lie. There is no path wherein temporarily overcoming Natural Law results in breaking it. That is impossible, and we should remember that when charismatic leaders attempt to sell us on the idea. The best way to mitigate as much pain in life as possible is to align yourself with Natural Law and seek wisdom. That message is found over and over and over again in all of the classic works of literature.
To Be Conservative in Application
It is important to remember that there is no perfection. You can’t avoid the pain of life. Being a classic conservative means always studying, guarding, and working to stay or return to alignment with natural laws. Along the same line of thinking, there is no “moderate.” This is simply a term adopted by a person who is confused on the subject and doesn’t know what they are. Adopting that term is an attempt to project a feeling of superiority by their misguided belief that they can pick and choose, based on their emotional state, or peer influence, which Natural Laws to violate and which to support. In other words, they are “Liberal Lite”, and like all liberals, they are smarter than the Universe and the billions of years of its development.
If you want to understand alignment with the Universe and Conservatism, study Natural Law. There are thousands of books on the topic. I am not talking about modern liberal humanist twists. I am talking about the classics; you can find some in the following notes.
This paper is not intended to discuss economics per se. That conversation may come later. However, I might drop a few principles here that illustrate this conversation and explain practical conservative alignments in a modern world.
In the ideal world, we should strive to minimize hierarchical structures unless used sparingly to mitigate existential risk, as they are intended to control the individual. We should fight for decentralization and employ networks whenever risk allows, as they are intended to empower the individual. We must always remember that the further from the individual a decision occurs, the less likely it will benefit the individual. When social and political hierarchies are instituted, it is always with the intention to harvest the productivity of the individual and collect it to the elite peerage.
Similarly, when confronted with bad behavior and crime, we should never attack the supply side of the equation, always deal with the demand. The “War Against Drugs” is a good example of a complete and total failure because by limiting the supply side, all it did was drive up prices and encourage the growth of markets. Wealthy criminals always buy politicians and judges. Unfortunately, dealing with the demand side has a high personal pain price and most people vote for political con artists who convince them they will make the pain of bad decisions someone else’s problem.
Capitalism is the ideal economic structure for conservatism. It aligns with the Universal Laws that govern us by entrusting the control of money as closely as possible to the individual who successfully manages and increases it. Again, this is the folly of socialism or centralization, it removes capital from the most skillful and assigns its management to the unskilled and usually corrupt. From that point it is distributed to those who are least capable, creates dependence, and penalizes the most successful, thus discouraging hard work and risk taking. For excellent explanations, you might refer to the Parable of Sowing and Reaping in the Bible, Luke 8:5-15, and the Parable of the Talents, Matthew 25:14. Again, the Bible is a book of timeless lessons that are in alignment with the laws of the Universe.
Bibliography
At one time, before I downsized, I had more than 3,000 books in my library, most of the non-fiction I had read at least once. These are some of my favorites, plus some I added because I am aware of their value.
Frederick Bastiat, The Law.
Democracy in America [Alexis de Tocqueville, Harvey C. Mansfield, Delba Winthrop]
Being Happy! by Andrew Matthews
The Federalist Papers, Hamilton, Madison, Jay
The United States Constitution.
Lincoln at Gettysburg, Garry Wills
Operation: Austin: by V S Campbell
The Madness, by V S Campbell
One Second After, Forstchen, William R
As A Man Thinketh, James Allen
The Bible. I recommend the Maxwell Leadership Bible.
The Mind of the Strategist, Kenichi Ohmae
The Book of Five Rings, Miyamoto Musashi
The E Myth, Michael Gerber (or variations)
Anything by Napoleon Hill, especially Think and Grow Rich
The University of Success, Og Mandino. Seriously, anything he wrote is brilliant but this is a collection of works by the world’s foremost authorities on success. This is a “can’t miss” reading.
HBR Press (Harvard) publishes a list of the 40 best business books.
https://store.hbr.org/best-business-books
Goodreads has a list of hundreds of the best books on economics. I haven’t read all of them, but I looked at the list and most of the top, I have read or were in my library at one time.
https://www.goodreads.com/list/show/7874.Best_Economics_Books
To Ride, Shoot Straight, and Speak the Truth: Jeff Cooper
Any Book by Ayn Rand
Any book in the Foxfire series
The Foundation Series, Isaac Asimov
Anything by Thomas Sowell
Everything by William Shakespeare
The Greek Testament: with a critically revised text, a digest of various readings, marginal references to verbal and idiomatic usage, prolegomena, and a critical and exegetical commentary.
By Henry Alford (This is an exhaustive four volume commentary. Twenty years in the writing.)
The One Thing: The Surprisingly Simple Truth Behind Extraordinary Results
by Gary Keller
Who Stole the American Dream: The Book Your Boss Doesn’t Want You to Read
by Burke Hedges
Fields to Freedom: The Links of Life
by Frank D. Morales
A Better Way to Live
by Og Mandino
Enthusiasm Makes the Difference
by Norman Vincent Peale
The Choice: A Surprising New Message of Hope
by Og Mandino
Acres of Diamonds
by Russell H. Conwell
Intentional Living: Choosing a Life That Matters
by John C. Maxwell
The Leadership Handbook: 26 Critical Lessons Every Leader Needs
by John C. Maxwell
Good Leaders Ask Great Questions: Your Foundation for Successful Leadership
by John C. Maxwell
Win: The Key Principles to Take Your Business from Ordinary to Extraordinary
by Frank Luntz
Everyone Communicates, Few Connect: What the Most Effective People Do Differently
by John C. Maxwell
Extreme Ownership: How U.S. Navy SEALs Lead and Win
by Jocko Willink
Contact Capital: How to Turn Your Contacts Into Cashflow
by Bob Proctor
Hung by the Tongue: What You Say Is What You Get
by Francis P. Martin
Author Website: vscampbell.com
Cheers
