Readers: This article is part of an apparently-ongoing correspondence. If you want brevity, you can skip the greetings below and scan down to the first section header.

David,

Greetings again!

Previously, we've both written to each other, in our discussion of left versus right, as though were mainly addressing our readership, as in your most recent post, and mine, before that. But I would guess my own blog has about five regular readers. So if you read this article, it will be a major (20%) boost in circulation. ;-)

Thus, in a setting this intimate, and on our third posting, I would feel a bit like I was talking past you, and being a bit rude, to address our audience again -- and you only indirectly. So I hope you don't mind the switch, at least for this post. (Though I'll probably fall back into my usual style later.)

I can see I have met my match in terms of verbosity: You have responded to my nine paragraph argument that conservatives want less government with no less than forty! But they are well-written and I take it as a compliment that you would put in so much effort -- and testimony to your own willingness to take our discussion seriously. I sincerely thank you, David.

(And I will probably answer even more verbosely, so this is not a criticism.)

But in order to stop this from becoming unreadable -- as it would if I responded to everything at once -- I'm just going to attempt to engage one argument at a time. So this post will focus on the original question which, as I see it, is the question of whether it is "liberals" or "conservatives" who more wish to use government in the service of their values.

Backstory

You said originally (forgive the brevity):

Furthermore, the far right conservative base, in my opinion, does lobby heavily to impose their religious values into legislation. I disagree with the level to which the evangelical fundamentalists, a term frequently misused, seek to "impose" their values on others.

I responded that (a) all legislation was basicly an attempt to encode morality in government, and (b) a basic tenant of American conservatism is a weak, minimal government. Thus, I argued, it was "liberals", not conservatives who most often used the power of law to bring about their values.

Regarding (a), you agreed, and went further -- stating something else I agree with but rarely see admitted by my political opposites:

...religion and politics are both about people and values. You cannot separate the latter, particularly when it is the basis of the culture and the country the people founded.

Indeed! Our philosophy or religion informs our values, which, in turn, inevitably color how we approach actions taken in the public square -- "politics."

So it's important, when there's a political disagreement, to find out what values and perceptions underlie it. Once you understand the difference in values or perception of facts, you can stop uselessly arguing about the perceived "solutions" and get to the meat of the matter.

So, now that I've outdone your verbosity -- having written over 12 paragraphs with not a single rebuttal -- I can now touch on one of our disagreements.

Who "legislates values" more?

Though you have previously said "the far right ... does lobby heavily to impose their religious values into legislation", you have now written (bold added):

A basic tenet of a democratic government is to ensure the rights and liberties of the meek and minorities (quantity, not ethnicity) must be protected and not just the powerful or majority. That principle alone adequately addresses minimum-wage laws, welfare programs, “socialized” medicine, etc.

Most conservatives agree entirely with the desires which underlie each of these programs (better conditions for the poor, etc.). But, as you imply, we disagree on the best mechanism for bringing each desire about. In each case, liberals generally favor using legislation and governmental power, and conservatives generally do not.

Consider your own examples: Where liberals more often favor government-run welfare, conservatives tend to favor private, voluntary charity. Whereas a liberal might feel that that government should help the poor by telling business what minimum wage to offer, a conservative generally favors letting the two parties involved (potential employer and employee) negotiate whatever wage both can agree upon. Etcetera.

Regardless of which policy is better, at this point, I'd only request that you notice you've basicly admitted that you favor translating your values into governmental power much more than I do. And given a classic list of examples -- programs which rely on governmental coercion and require each of us to give the government more of our money -- as an illustration.

What is the purpose of government?

One reason for our difference, here, is that we don't share the same view of government. You may not even be aware of this difference, so I'd like to explain.

Consider the premise of your statement above (bold added):

A basic tenet of a democratic government is to ensure the rights and liberties of the meek and minorities... must be protected and not just the powerful or majority. That principle alone adequately addresses minimum-wage laws, welfare programs, “socialized” medicine, etc.

I'd certainly agree with the text of the first sentence, but not with the underlying implications you seem to mean. You apparently mean one thing by "rights", and I mean quite another.

When our country was founded, there was an ongoing debate about rights, between "negative" and "positive" rights, as typified in the philosophies of Locke and Hobbes, respectively. Our country was founded on the former.

"Positive" rights are where all people are entitled to receive certain things food, shelter, employment, a "living wage", medicine, etc.

In contrast, "negative" rights are derived from "natural law", and I cannot explain the theory any more succinctly than the Founders did, in the very document which created our nation:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

According to the Founders, the purpose of "democracy" ("the consent of those governed") is primarily to secure these basic "negative" rights -- freedoms we all possess even with no compulsion to anyone else. Government may do other things, too, but this must remain its primary purpose: safeguarding individual liberty.

As Jefferson put it: "the policy of the American government is to leave their citizens free, neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits." And as George Washington warned: "Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." The founders were wary about government, and wanted to have as little of it as necessary.

So conservatives agree that the government can and should be used to provide some basic services -- roads, national defense, etc. But they believe this should be done carefully, and at the lowest level possible: roads can be managed (mostly) by each state, defense must be coordinated federally. Government should be brought in as a last resort.

Effects

So we fight about the ensuing stances ("politics") in part because we have two entirely different underlying theories, concerning of the primary purpose of government.

Under one view, if a "minority" (your stated concern) lacks something, and we say that is an absolute "right", then someone else must be compelled to give it to them. In this scheme, the government is put in charge of deciding who is a minority, what they lack, and who must be compelled to provide it to them, by what means.

From the other view, this happens at the expense of liberty. For example, if government is in charge of feeding the poor, the money which might otherwise be donated to a variety of approaches ends up being taken as taxes and directed to one central effort, leaving fewer approaches and choices.

The liberal might respond that the tradeoff is well worth it.

The conservative would say that it probably isn't, and would also argue that the very solutions liberals recommend not only diminish liberty, but, ironically, also typically fail to provide the desired result, harming the very people they're supposed to help.

A Solution?

Later in your post, you express your own hopes and good intentions for unity:

The problem, as I see it, is we are not motivated or wise enough to even attempt to bring right and left towards each other. The overall desire and will simply does not exist... So, what is the solution? Leadership. And, we are sorely void of anything remotely resembling political leadership.

Though in my heart I share your hope of unity, I beg to differ: I do not think this division can be healed by more effective leadership or better intentions.

As I sketched above, differences arise because of different values, and different perceptions of facts.

In terms of values, we apparently disagree concerning the primary role of our government.

In terms of perceptions of facts, you apparently believe the programs you've mentioned are effective, and achieve the desired results, whereas I believe they are dismal failures which actually harm the very people they're supposed to help.

The first difference, values, is somewhat subjective, and nearly religious: I don't see any way a person from one camp can convince the other, except to examine, perhaps, the same evidence and history that convinced the Founders.

The second, however, is factual. Minimum wage laws, for example, either improve the condition overall for the poor, or they don't. If you are willing, we could examine the evidence together to see which solution works. But that opens up the possibilty that one of us might have to change our mind.

I'm more than willing if you are.

God bless you, David.

- Tim