Crash course on Partisan Confusion

Tweet

One thing I have noticed during the discussion of political philosophies and their related economic policies is the seeming confusion and misinterpretation about what exactly defines a conservative or a liberal.

For instance the Janesville Messenger ran an article written by David Boaz, VP of the right-wing extreme Cato Institute. The story was in honor of Milton Friedman who recently passed away. He was a writer and an advisor to Republican presidents. He also was an expert in economic theory, specifically “liberal economics.” Now this is where it gets confusing because most people with a sufficiently general knowledge of the economy equate Republican economic policy as conservative, when in fact, nothing could be further from the truth. The Republican economic policies have revolved around the same principles Democrats utilize regarding personal freedom and rights. That is to say, Republicans have promoted free access to profits and all of its attachments the same way democrats have promoted the free access to personal freedoms with all of its attachments. So generally speaking, most modern Democrats are liberal except in one category- economics. Conversely, most Republicans are conservative except in one category- economics. Even the Nobel prize winner Milton Friedman was miffed when others referred to him as a conservative, when in truth, he was a pure liberal with no exceptions.

JM excerpt:
For the next 40 years, Friedman remained one of America’s most important advocates of individual freedoms. He wrote a column for Newsweek, lectured around the world, and appeared on television, always arguing for the benefits of free societies and free markets. He was enlisted as an advisor to Republican presidents and candidates, yet rejected the label “conservative,” insisting that he was a liberal like Thomas Jefferson and John Stuart Mill, or a libertarian in modern terms.

It would be safe to say that the Republicans who requested Friedman's advice on economic policy did not care too much for his personal social views. Friedman preached liberalism to such an extreme, some would confuse him for an anarchist. But that would not be fair. Milton Friedman, for all practical purposes in recorded history could be best described as the father of anarco-capitalism, ironically the economic policy espoused by his son David D. Friedman.

However, it becomes plain to see that even liberalism has its trade-offs when a balance must be struck for the common good. The dropping of pollution standards, the flat-tax, lowering standards on labor safety, deregulation, corporate tax elimination, no minimum wage and the defunding of governmental safety nets like Social Security are just a few examples of the wild-west policies that envelope “liberal economics” practiced by Republicans. The anomaly here is the government spending side of the equation, where neither side, Republican or Democrat have assumed any leadership. Which is exactly why traditional conservatives are particularly angry with Bush, they thought he was one of them. They were wrong. He is the spokesman for the free markets taken to the most extreme. Like many Republicans, Bush practices “liberal economics” at both the supply and demand side, yet somehow manages to still be connected with conservatism, just like Milton Friedman.

In fact the trend lately has been in the favor of democrats/progressives/liberals regarding spending and fiscal management. They have shown some control in balancing government budgets, which is at the core of “economic conservatism.” So in general, the modern Democrat is a liberal on individual rights, but a conservative on economics. Exactly the opposite direction from where the Republicans have been taking us for the past twelve years.

This is not a new idea though, its been around long enough for corporations and other business entities to lobby legislators throughout the world to help them (corporations) secure the same liberal rights as an individual. This is where the battle is being fought today with Republicans selling out our tax policies in favor of business using the principles of “liberal economics.”

Government must allow unfettered personal liberties in order to foster a free society, while simultaneously creating a rule of law to balance and check the markets. What is conservative about Bush and the GOP platform applies only to their views on personal rights. Under the Bush Administration, new rules have been created to restrict personal freedoms involving privacy, abortion, human rights and religion. All conservative in principle, while demanding the markets to run wild as a "liberal economy."