Terms are
convenient conversational shortcuts and, like the handle of a hot frying pan,
they let us get a hold of something that would otherwise be difficult. Some
great jokes (and some not-so-great wars) have been based on misunderstandings
of the meanings of different words. Much confusion arises when the same word is taken by two people to mean two completely different things. Can there be real dialogue when we are not on the proverbial "same sheet of music?
The purpose of this paper is to offer some working definitions which will enable us to continue in meaningful dialogue without getting mired in the sticky clay of terminology.
The use of terms like "liberal", "conservative", "Christian", and "patriot" may be helpful in defining how a person or a group generally stands on social or political issues, but might be also seriously misapplied. Even within a group, you will undoubtedly find persons who, on certain issues, will vote more like a member of another group. Also, if you combine terms like "Christian Patriot", or "Conservative Christian" it might muddy the waters even more.
What follows is a partial list of some of the most frequently-used terms in my political science and American Government classes. These definitions will provide students with a common ground for launching their discussions. Lets start with Noah Webster's 1828 Dictionary definitions since that dictionary would give the meanings at the time of the founders. Unless otherwise noted, the definition will be the first one listed as the most common usage of the term or, if the term has meaning apart from its political application, the political meaning is given. Where the 1828 Dictionary doesn't list the term, then I use my Merriam Webster's 1995 Desk Dictionary to supply the meaning. Then, I offer an expanded explanation of the terms most often misunderstood and misapplied. I have tried to keep the history lessons as short as possible but I don't see how to really appreciate these terms without some historical context.
ANARCHY a social structure without government or law and order.
AUTHORITY: Legal power or a right to command or to act; as in the authority of a prince over subjects, and of parents over children.
BUREAUCRACY: (From the 1995 Desk Dictionary) A body of appointive government officials, 2. a government marked by specialization of functions under fixed rules and a hierarcy of authority; also: an unwieldy administrative system burdened with excessive complexity and lack of flexibility.
CAPITALISM:(from the 1995 Desk Dictionary) An economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods and by prices, production, and distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market.
CHRISTIAN: A believer in the religion of Christ. 3. A real disciple of Christ; one who believes in the truth of the Christian religion, and studies to follow the example, and obey the precepts, of Christ; a believer in Christ who is characterized by real piety.
CHRISTIANITY: (1995 Dictionary) The Religion derived from Jesus Christ, based on the
Bible as sacred scripture, and professed by Christians.
CONSERVATIVE: (1995 Dictionary) (2.)Disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or
institutions; or moderate, cautious. (From the 1828 Dictionary, the root meaning is consistent with the concept of preserving, guarding, or protecting.)
CONSTITUTION: 4. The established form of government in a state, kingdom, or country; a system of fundamental rules, principles, and ordinances for the government of a state or nation.
CULTURE: (1995 Dictionary) 4. The customary beliefs, social forms, and material traits of a racial, religious, or social group.
DEMOCRACY: Government by the people; esp: rule by the majority (2.) a
government in which the supreme power is held by the people (5.) the common
people- especially when constituting the source of political authority.
DIALECTIC (HEGELIAN): (1995 Dictionary) The process of or art of reasoning by discussion of conflicting ideas; also: The tension between opposing elements. [note* Hegel, a German philosopher (1770-1831) more than any previous philosopher, established a history of philosophy as an important field of study. In his book Logic (1812-1816) he presents his concept of the thesis, in conflict with the antithesis, which combines to produce the synthesis, which becomes the new thesis and the process begins anew indefinitely.]
DIVERSITY from Latin, diversitas, Difference, dissimilitude, unlikeness.
EGALITARIANISM: (from the 1995 Dictionary) A belief in human equality especially in social, political, and economic affairs.
ELITISM (1995 Dictionary) Leadership or rule by and elite [superior group].
EQUALITY 2. The same degree of dignity or claims. (distinctly different from egalitarian which does not deal with degree but with actual position)
HUMANISM (1995 Dictionary) 2. A doctrine or way of life centered on human interests or values.
FEDERAL: (2.) Of or constituting a form of government in which power is
distributed between a central authority and constituent territorial units.
IDEOLOGY (1995 Dictionary) The body of ideas characteristic of a particular individual, group, or culture. 2. the assertions, theories, and aims that constitute a political, social, and economic program.
IMPERIALISM (1995 Dictionary) The policy of seeking to extend the power, dominion, or territories of a nation.
INDIVIDUALISM A doctrine that the interests of the individual are primary 2. a doctrine holding that the individual has political or economic rights with which the state must not interfere.
LIBERAL: (4.) Not narrow in opinion or judgment: Tolerant; also, not
orthodox. Generous.
LIBERALISM: (1995 Dictionary) (System of thought based upon) liberals practices or theories.
LIBERTARIAN: An advocate for the doctrine of free will (2.) one who
upholds the principles of unrestricted liberty.
NATIONALISM (1995 Dictionary) Devotion to the national interests, unity and independence.
PATRIOT A person who loves his country, and zealously supports and defends it and its interests.
PATRIOTISM Love of one's country; the passion which aims to serve one's country. Patriotism is the characteristic of a good citizen, the noblest passion that animates a man in the character of a citizen.
REPRESENTATION 7. The business of acting as a substitute for another; as the representation of a nation in a legislative body.
REPRESENTATIVE 2. In legislative or other business, an agent, deputy, or substitute who supplies the place of another or others, being invested with his or their authority. In matters concerning his constituents only, he is supposed to be bound by their instructions, but in the enacting of laws for the nation, he is supposed not to be bound by their instructions, as he acts for the whole nation.
REPUBLIC: A Commonwealth (2.) A government in which supreme power is held by elected
officers and representatives governing according to law.
RHETORIC: To speak with propriety, elegance, or force.
RHETORICAL QUESTION: (Common usage in debate or public speaking- a question that does not anticipate an answer or where the context of the speech gives only one obvious answer.)
SOCIALISM: (1995 Dictionary) Any of various social systems based on shared or government
ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of
goods. (author's note: more an economic system than a political system.)
TERRORISM (1995 Dictionary) The systematic use of terror as a means of coercion.
UNITY Latin Unitas The state of being one; oneness; 2. Concord, conjunction
The word in the Greek is exousia and is to be distinguished from POWER which in the Greek is dunimos (from which we get the word "dynamite.") Authority is always understood to be legitimate whereas power may be either legitimate or not, depending upon its association with authority. Ultimate authority is from God (Ro 13: 1-7) and is delegated to people. The government (regardless of form) derives it authority from people governed. Government is empowered to the extent necessary to accomplish its legitimate function. (see The Declaration of Independence. Also, the "Necessary and Proper" clause in the U.S. Constitution) If at any time, the government usurps its authority, it becomes "outlaw" and it is the right and the duty of the people to abolish or overthrow that government (See- Declaration). My history and government students will remember that this argument formed the "moral justification" for the colonists to take up arms against King George. Also, this argument provided the same moral justification for Daniel Shays' Rebellion in Western Massachussetts although, with a different outcome.
Bureaucracy is usually used in a derogatory sense to refer to government in general because it it is perceived as slow, unresponsive, and inefficient. In a strict sense, bureaucracy is simply the division of the governmental power into administrative subsections, each with their own hierarchy, rules and procedures. Because the authority of these administrative sub-units often overlap, the business of governing is sometimes slowed to a crawl or, doesn't happen at all. (sometimes this may be a good thing for the people!)
Entire books are written about capitalism. Some people sing its praises while others lament that such a system was ever conceived and wish that it had been stillborn. In truth, capitalism (as with other economic theories) seldom operates in "pure" form. There is, of necessity, some constraint place upon capitalism by government. Regulations that require minimum wage, workplace safety, performance standards, etc. all attack the profit margin of the capitalist. In different countries, the degree of constraint is higher than in the U.S. Here, there is somewhat less government intervention in most businesses than in other countries but the trend is towards ever-increasing government intrusion.
Capitalism is rooted in the principles of property ownership rights. Ownership of property is considered by capitalists to be necessary for true independence from government. If a person has property (usually argued in the sense of "real" property as distinct from "personal" property) then that person has the potential to create economic and political power. That the individual is the source of political power is consistent with, and a necessary pre-condition of, self-government. The "right" associated with property does not mean a guarantee to the possession of property, but the freedom of "opportunity" to acquire property.
Of course, just as individuals have the right of opportunity to succeed economically without government intervention, individuals have an equal right of opportunity to fail economically. One of the hallmarks of conservatism is that if government power is to be restrained from interfering with individual opportunity to succeed, it is logically consistent that government power be also restrained from preventing failure. When this allowed to occur naturally, capitalists are accused of being hard-hearted, selfish, mean-spirited, or exploitive. One of the legitimate purposes of government is to "promote the general welfare" of the citizens. Just how much of a "hands-off" attitude by government is necessary to balance the competing principles is precisely the application of politics.
Any comparison of capitalism with other economic systems must consider the historical time period, the type of political leadership, the general economic conditions, the state of technology, the cultural/social characteristics of the people, the purity of the philosophical application, the support of the media, etc. Marxism gained a huge following in America and Europe because the conditions were right for that ideology to gain a foothold. Industrial technology was growing and profit-hungry owners took advantage of available labor resources. The idea that the "compassionate state" would look after the needs of the exploited worker class found a ready audience in media and politics. History has proven, however, that the basic tenets of Marxism are unworkable because the basic assumptions about human nature were false. Nevertheless, there has been a paradigm shift and ideas of Socialism have taken solid root in American capitalism.
Christianity
is, first of all, rooted (founded) in the person of Jesus Christ. If one claims
to be a Christian, one cannot separate oneself from Jesus Christ. There are
assumptions central to the arguments for Christianity that must be accepted by
the claimants for their logic to be consistent. A person cannot reject the
Person of Christ or His teachings and claim to be a "follower" of Christ.
Likewise, one cannot claim to be a Christian and simultaneously reject the scripture as the Word of God because Jesus both studied and taught from the Old Testament. We may differ on interpretations and applications, but to deny the authority of scripture is to reject the teachings of Christ. Since Jesus taught that scripture is inspired by God, we are not free to pick and choose what parts of the Bible we are comfortable with and exclude the rest. To be a follower of Christ requires diligent study and discipline (from the same word we get
"disciple"). It is a growth process and takes a lifetime of
commitment. Additionally, it is a commitment that is personal and may not achieved vicariously through the acts of another. God, the Bible teaches, has children, but not grandchildren. An excellent book for anyone who has questions about basic doctrine or apparent contradictions, may I recommend Evidence That Demands A Verdict by Josh McDowell.
In its pure theological sense, Christianity explicitly requires submission to the Lordship of Jesus Christ and trust in Him for salvation. But, as it has been used often in the social or political sense, "Christian" is a convenient handle for someone who accepts (at least in general) the morality of Jesus and the application of His teachings as a good reference point for interpersonal relationships. Thus, it is quite common for a person or group to generally subscribe to the teachings of Christ, without accepting Him as their personal Lord and Savior. Thomas Jefferson is an example of a founding father whose writings indicate that he was not a Christian in the theological sense, but could be called "Christian" in the political sense. Likewise, in many foreign countries, to be "Christian" means simply to be "Western" in one's political beliefs.
A political "conservative" according to the Webster's definition
would have to be someone who does not want to change the status quo, or at
least, not change it very rapidly. If you are a person who thinks that the way
things are is pretty much the way things ought to be, then you
probably fit in the conservative mold. That is not to say that conservatives
won't change or that they think everything is hunky-dory in America, but they
DO tend to place a high value on tradition. Generally, a conservative is
more likely to want social change from "the bottom up" rather than
from "the top down". This is consistent with the belief that legitimate
authority flows from the individual to the state rather than from the state to the individual.
A good working definition for our purposes would be this: "We define
conservatism as a defense of the political, economic, religious, and social
status quo from the forces of abrupt change, that is based on a belief that
established customs, laws, and traditions provide continuity and stability in
the guidance of society" [1]
Conservatism, as a political philosophy is attributed largely to Edmund Burke (1729-1797). It was seen as a defense of individual rights from the potentially tyrannical, reactionary tendencies of a majoritarian Liberal democracy. Further, Conservatism assumes that humanity can realize itself only in history and only through conventional institutions. Burke wrote "For man is a most wise, and a most unwise, being. The individual is foolish. The multitude, for the moment, is foolish, when they act without deliberation; but the species is wise, and when time is given to it, as a species it almost always acts right." [2]
Not coincidentally, that was precisely the view of the founding fathers when they designed the U.S. Constitution. One needs only to study Supreme Court decisions from the last sixty years to see that the expanded role of the federal government is a latter-day phenomenon. The notion that the Federal Government is the proper vehicle by which social change may (must) be engineered, and that the federal judiciary is a proper change agent, is primarily a child of the post-WWII generation. The process of politics is the method working out disagreements regarding the proper balance between individual, state, and federal authority. If the American system of government works as it was designed, and in accordance with the principles articulated in the founding documents, this process works itself out primarily in the legislative branch and at the lowest levels of government.
John Jay, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton were some of the founders that favored a strong central government. Together with George Washington and John Adams, who were more moderate, they reflect the Federalist Party perspective. Some of those who feared a strong central government and favored more power at the state level (Republicans), would have been, Samuel Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, Roger Sherman and John Witherspoon.
Now, what happens when we combine the terms "conservative" and "Christian"? We find a person who has accepted as truth that Jesus Christ is God Incarnate, has submitted to His lordship, and adheres to the traditions and customs that have marked the Christian faith for the last two thousand years. Certainly every person with that label would not be a rigid example of cookie-cutter exactness or of behavioral perfection but they would share a doctrine that has remained unchanged since the Resurrection. Forms of worship and methods of church government not withstanding, the Christian Church is the body of true believers who love, honor and obey Jesus Christ. The principles enumerated in the Bill of Rights are all found in the Bible as foundation principles of civil government and were instituted by the colonists whose settlement of this continent was largely motivated by Christian evangelism. Often, Christian conservatives are described as "fundamental radicals" and "right-wing extremists". To be sure, any philosophical ideal can be tortured to the extreme but one who holds on to widely shared, long-standing traditions is, by no means, an "extremist." The use of such inflamatory language is evidence that the speaker has run out of intellectual ammunition. It is interesting to note how often (and how early) in their articles many liberal authors resort to name-calling.
The concept of "Constitution" is that it is a covenant
that forms the foundation upon which all just law is derived. Our U.S. Constitution is unique in several ways. It is
relatively short (just 4,300 words) and yet has endured longer than any other
constitution born out of revolution. It is significantly farsighted in that it
established a form of government which was not only adequate to guide a small
huddled group agrarian colonies, but also the nuclear-powered nation now in
the 21st century. By creating three separate, interdependent
branches of government, it seeks to balance the power which history has shown
will corrupt monarchies and other forms of government.
The principle that stands out from the rest is that our Constitution is the result of a "covenant" between the people in which they mutually pledge to submit to the authority of the law (Rule of Law). It is not a pledge to submit to a king, or a political party, or an economic system. It explicitly requires officials to submit themselves to the PRINCIPLES of the constitution as before God. That makes it unique among the documents that may be found in other forms of government. The Rule of Law reduces the amount of discretion that may be exercised but it does not mean that the "letter" of the law should be so rigidly applied that injustice results. The moral legitimacy of the Rule of Law rests on the principle that law and government exist to promote and protect liberty and justice for all.
The power and stability of self-government is entirely predicated on the internal morality of the people. A moral people will have the integrity and commitment necessary to put their own interests aside when necessary to preserve the unity and the union of the group. As John Adams said, "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." [3] (italics mine)
In George Washington's famous Farewell Address delivered on September 19, 1796, he stated,
"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labour to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked where is the security of property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason, and experience both forbids us to expect that National morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle." [4]
Democracy is a form of government where the people directly have a voice in
public policy. Ours is not a true democracy. It is, however, a democratic
Republic because of the representative nature of law-making and administration.
For simplicity, let's look at Federal and Republic together since that
describes the form of government that we have. Two essential attributes combine
to give us some protection against absolute tyranny. First, the word federal
describes the condition where power is diversified among the various political
subgroups. It could describe a community of families, a state of communities or
a nation of states- but you get the idea. In our case, it is all of the above.
This prevents consolidation of a power base that would ultimately impose the
will of the strongest over the will of the weakest in a group.
Republic is the part of the equation where the people can administer their affairs through selected representatives. This streamlines the process and enables government to work smoother. The apparatus remains accountable through the democratic process where we frequently elect people of good character (?) whom we trust (??) and whom we believe will reflect our values (???) in the performance of their duties. (Really!) Further, the concept is not an invention of the American founding fathers, but is found in the Old Testament (which was the most quoted source document for our constitution, by the way).
"Israel in the days of the judges was a federal republic. This assertion may surprise some people, but whenever power is diffused throughout different levels of government, where each level has its own sphere of authority, and where the top level does not involve itself with the local governmental affairs unless asked to do so, the structure is federalism. It is an effective protection against tyranny. In addition, the people choose their leaders; representation is the key ingredient for what political thinkers have always called a republic. The system in early Israel was therefore a federal republic". [5]
So, the United States is a federal republic, a constitutional republic, and a democratic republic.
Liberalism has two different meanings historically and a wide range of applications in the present political context. Classic Liberalism is the term used to describe the philosophy of government articulated by John Locke (consider by some to be the "father" of Liberalism) and used as the basis for American Self-Governance. Classic Liberalism departs from Feudalism, which describes the very stable social system of Europe in the Middle Ages. Feudalism describes an agricultural-based, locally- oriented economic system where communities were formed around large land holdings dominated by wealthy and powerful individuals. Characteristics of Feudalism include: rigid social structure,
loyalty to tradition, and, landed aristocracy. Individuals had no meaing or identity apart from their role in the hierarchy. Feudalism accepted as normal (even God-ordained) the rigid social structure and priority placed on community. Authority flows downward and the community precedes the individual in the order of things.
In Classic Liberalism, the individual places higher than the community in the hierarchy. Thus, authority flows from the individual to the rest of society. The basis for this idea is that mankind is endowed with REASON by God, and man's "apartness" from the rest of creation liberates him from any social hierarchy. Not only is man an individual, he is individually equal in a very fundamental sense. Rather than deriving his meaning from the social structure, he aligns himself purposefully with others in order to achieve his personal fulfillment. Locke argued that individuals will form themselves together by "social contract" to preserve both individual rights and, because of what he called "moral imperatives", the rights of others.
Classic Liberalism assumes that humanity is "fallen from grace," to use the theological term. By that, it is understood that man, endowed with reason, used his divine gift of choice and, by choosing to disobey God, acquired a "sinful nature." Because he still possesses the Divine spark, man retains his authority and dominion over the earth but, because of sin, must now live with the consequences of his choice. Government, unnecessary when man existed in a state of grace, is now critical to man's self-realization and fulfillment. But the purposes of government are still to promote justice, and by extension, to promote the acquisition of property so that the individual, through exercise of reason, may become fully self-realized.
Neo-Liberalism (the modern variation) retains the classic assumption of the supremacy of the individual over the state but it also incorporates the humanist philosophy that man is the absolute authority. By divorcing God, mankind is "truly liberated." Tradition, conventional wisdom, historical context, and all of religion become relegated to the trash heap of social development. Such are considered by the neo-liberal to be medieval relics of human ignorance. According to this "new" liberalism, God is not only an unnecessary idea, but perhaps even a dangerous one since belief in a "Supreme Authority" may hinder true self-fulfillment and self-realization. In this sense, Marx believed that God was "the opiate of the masses."
A Libertarian is a person who places a great value (perhaps the greatest
value) on the individual's right of self-determinism. There are varying degrees
of libertarians just as there are varying degrees of republicans and democrats. An extreme
libertarian believes in (and lobbies for) the absolute lack of restriction or
interference with his choices (See Anarchy). The philosophical basis for this position is humanism (man is the ultimate authority in the universe). The more moderate libertarian may appear to have more in common with a conservative, at least as far as their wish to reduce the size and scope of government. The theological difference between a political conservative and a
moderate libertarian is that the libertarian would not accept that any person
or agency has moral authority over the individual where the conservative would grant
limited, clearly defined, yet legitimate authority to government. Further, a Christian who is
also politically conservative would add that all moral authority is from God and
that the only legitimate authority any civil government may claim is that
which is granted by the people AND is consistent with scripture.
The main distinction between Nationalism and Patriotism is one of degree of passion. Where Patriotism is a love of country, Nationalism values the nation (and the nation's interests) more than the individual. In fact, the individuals who comprise the nation may only achieve realization of full human potential in and through the nation. It is diametrically opposed to Classic Liberalism in that Liberalism emphasizes the human potential of the individual. Where in Liberalism the individual possess ultimate sovereignty and the state derives its authority from the individuals, Nationalism views the nation as sovereign and asserts that the it is only through the order and structure of government that the individual can be defined. Nationalism replaces the moral authority of God with the authority of the state. Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and Imperial Japan are examples of forms of Nationalism.
Patriotism is pride in one's nation and its achievements but it is not worship of the nation. The people are sovereign and the authority of government is derived from the people, not visa-versa. A patriot, full of love for, and pride in his country, might never-the-less possess enough personal character to recognize an official order as "illegitimate" and refuse to obey the officer or judge or other official from whom it was issued. Extreme patriotism is hard to distinguish from nationalism.
The founders saw a two-tiered application of this term. As Noah Webster observed, a representative (in the political sense of the word) is BOTH and agent for the constituency (when acting directly on their behalf) and a "trustee" of the public good (when passing laws for the nation as a whole.) Although conflicts of interest may certainly appear, the presumption is that the national needs will trump the desires of the good folks who elected the official if there was a difference between the two.
Essentially an economic system rather than a purely political one. It is associated with politics because, for it to work, people must be forced to accept its terms through the power of the state. Socialism argues that the state must control the means of production (factories, farms, etc.) and that people will give as much as they can to support the production for the state. In return, the state will give its citizens as much as they need for sustenance. Private individuals are not allowed to possess "excess" amounts beyond what they need for such accumulation in excess of need is "capitalism" and capitalism is the natural enemy of socialism. If individuals are allowed to accumulate wealth, it creates a situation of the "haves" versus the "have-nots" and the disparity of goods will create inevitable "class conflict." Order is the watchword and since it is government's duty to promote order, it is logically government's duty to control the wealth which causes conflict.
MARXISM Karl Marx (1818-1883) envisioned a global community of peace and tranquility that would exist in a natural state of balance with nature. This utopia would evolve (Marx tried to apply Darwinian evolution theory to the social and economic arenas) ONLY after the total removal of any kind of economic class distinction.
DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISM A political philosophy where enlightened humans would use their powers of reason to choose a social and economic structure where the power to create wealth was controlled by the state. Building upon the Marxist ideas of class struggle, and accepting as true that people desire peace and stability more than acquisition of material wealth, the multitudes will embrace a government that can deliver on the promise of peace (being defined as the "absence of conflict.")
Again, basic assumptions about human nature are called into question. Whenever extreme force is required to make people accept a thought, idea, or a political system, the reasonable person might pause to reconsider the logic or legitimacy of such a system.
[1] Dunn and Woodard, Conservative Tradition in America, Rowman & Littlefield,1996