Saturday, June 04, 2005

Commitment and Majorities

I am obviously biased. I am conservative. If you read my blog you know this. I have been wrestling with my concepts of liberalism, trying to figure out just why it is that we contradict each other: the very things I would say about a liberal, they could say about me. We would both be right in our own minds because we would be looking at each others behavior, seeing what we felt were inconsistencies.

How do we reconcile those inconsistencies for ourselves? I know that I prefer law and government in certain circumstances, and not in others. It is almost exactly opposite to when a liberal prefers law and government. I believe each branch of the government has certain duties, responsibilities, and certain powers it should not exercise. Those are almost exactly opposite to what a liberal expects.

I live my life being cautious in certain places, adhering to certain traditions, discarding others. I commit to certain things, I avoid commitment to others.

How do my choices make me conservative instead of liberal?

Liberals commit themselves only to the temporary. Commitment is good, but how committed are you if you know you can abort what you’ve started any time you want? It feels like a refusal to believe a part of you might be meant to serve others. Sometimes you must carry something through despite the fact that it is going to take from you and seems to give nothing back. The value may be for someone else, and you may not always be capable of discerning that value.

From what I can tell, liberals believe in mob rules, not majority rules. Mob rules are much more centralized. The loud voice, surrounded by angry people, focused on a mutual target that is often not only innocent of the charges levied upon it, but may be exactly what the larger majority wants. But the mob is not capable of understanding that. Instead of converting more to its cause, it tries to subvert.