What do history's most notorious despots have in common with many of the flag-waving, patriotic politicians of our day? Both groups rise to power through the exploitation of fear, which has become a societal plague. There have been widespread casualties. We need an antidote. Feardom offers its readers a much-needed immunization.
photo credit: wackocatho
Are you a conservative or a liberal? Do you classify yourself with these (or similar) epithets?
What is the difference between conservatives and liberals?
Noah Webster, a brilliant Founding Father, master of twenty-six languages, and author of the first American dictionary (published in 1828) once said when referring to the Bible:
“In the lapse of two or three centuries, changes have taken place which, in particular passages, … obscure the sense of the original languages…. The effect of these changes is that some words are not understood … and being now used in a sense different from that which they had … present wrong signification of the false ideas. Whenever words are understood in a sense different from that which they had when introduced… mistakes may be very injurious.” (Noah Webster, via Quoty)
This same etymological metamorphosis has occurred throughout the English language. Today, many words carry a meaning far different from their original intent.
So what exactly is a ‘conservative’ or a ‘liberal’? Is a ‘liberal’ today different from one two centuries ago? Do these labels accurately reflect the values and beliefs of each person who so classifies themselves?
Why does this back-and-forth struggle for power continue in our system—the very “spirit of party” that President Washington warned us of in his farewell address—whether between conservatives and liberals or Republicans and Democrats? What purpose does it serve? What are the consequences of such battles?
Nancy Levant opines on this issue:
What does it mean to be “conservative?” What does it mean to be “liberal?” Furthermore, who invented the contemporary definitions of political conservatism and liberalism? I will tell you who defined them — your television sets and their talking heads, which are owned, operated, and forced to say what their elite owner’s pay them to say. Hence, you now have 2 political parties, which have been totally “re-created” by corporately owned media to 1) relay to you your political opinions, and 2) to insist upon your political illusions. Herein lies the problem; you don’t really know or understand your political opinions, as they have been “manufactured” for you for decades. Furthermore, there is not one iota of difference between Democrat and Republican ideologies. Our belief in ideological differences has played us like cheap violins AND grew and implanted the one-world government directly beneath our nation and noses.
Does this view hold any water? Has the media had a notable impact on political ideologies and platforms? Have such opinions been manufactured for the citizenry?
Levant continues in her article illustrating how both conservatives and liberals have rescinded their label as Americans, allowing the talking heads and unprincipled politicians to drive our government toward socialism, communitarianism, and world government.
This process is known as the “Hegelian dialectic”.
The Hegelian dialectic is a process through which two opposing viewpoints or ideals arrive at some consensus, a veritable “middle ground”. One side, “thesis”, is at opposition with the other side, “antithesis”. Through the dialectic process the two sides capitulate and agree to a “synthesis”, a sort of meld between their two opposing view points—a compromise.
As the following graphic illustrates, the process continues over and over, leading each continuing thesis and antithesis to meet at some synthesis, pushing the agreements in one continual direction.
Much like the balance effect, the Hegelian dialectic moves society in a single direction, often one that has been planned and sought after. In our era, that end goal is communitarianism, socialism, and central planning. Individual liberty and self-governance is squandered as government largess continues to balloon and invade every facet of our lives.
The question then follows, who pre-determines the direction society is to move? Who crafts the thesis and antithesis in order to push us towards a synthesis? Why are we so blind to this gradual shift in policy and values that we do not see that both sides of the aisle have caused our erosion of personal liberty and stewardship?
Make no mistake: politicians claiming to adhere to completely opposite viewpoints and morals are aiding those who strive to push America towards a predetermined synthesis.
The antidote for the Hegelian dialetic is a difficult one—one that most people renounce and oppose: idealism. The dialectic is only enabled through compromise of ideals and capitulation of values. In our recent progressive and continually pluralistic society, traditional values and moral-based stances are frowned upon and ridiculed. It is because of this that otherwise good men lower their standards, yield to opposing forces, and narrow their vision.
America was founded—and its Declaration of Independence made to the world—because of a desire to shun the antithesis and provide each citizen a true thesis of limited government, individual liberty, and personal stewardship.
Whether self-proclaimed conservatives or liberals, we should all be Americans first. We should all renounce the “spirit of party” that plagues our society and divides us into ideological opposites, for this fosters the Hegelian dialectic and leads our nation to the desired objectives of an elite few. “We the people” must refuse such a process and infuse the political process once again with principle-based patriotism.