A divide too large to bridge.
People who know me would likely describe me as conservative or hard right. It is true I do agree with many “conservative” positions, but I am not conservative. At least not by the definition of conservatives. Originally Conservatives were those who valued institutions and traditions. Conservatives were resistant to change what already existed, but Liberals were more open to change.
By that simple definition I am a liberal. I am always open to change. But I do not agree with change for change’s sake. I also stubbornly insist that any change should have some reasonable chance of making things better rather than worse. This is where I separate from modern liberals. Modern liberals are not just open to change. They insist on change. The modern liberal thinks everything as it exists now is somehow wrong and must be changed.
This is childish thinking. There are often very good reasons why things are the way they are. Our ancestors were not stupid. Traditions and institutions developed the way they did because people found that is what worked. That does not mean any of them are perfect. It just means we have not found a better way yet. Conservatives understand that changing these things could have undesirable consequences. Things could easily get worse. Liberals don’t see the downside of change. They are so convinced of their moral and intellectually superiority that they cannot acknowledge they might be wrong.
The divide between traditional liberals and traditional conservatives is not that wide. Conservatives were cautious and liberals were bolder, but they wanted the same things. They both wanted a better world. That is no longer the case. Conservatives, not surprisingly, have not changed much. Liberals on the other hand have abandoned all common sense. Conservatives still want a better world. Liberals just want a world where they get to dictate everything.
When I say I am a liberal that is not quite correct. I am better described as a libertarian. I want the least government possible. Basically, I just want to be left alone, and I am content to leave others alone. They can do anything they want, as long as they do no harm to me or my family. If you do harm me or my family, I am willing to respond in kind.
I think if you asked even a progressive liberal they would say the same thing. The problem is that my definition of harm is different than theirs. My definition of harm is that you cannot physically assault me or take my property. Their definition of harm is much broader. I have harmed a modern liberal if I
- Say things they don’t like
- Don’t wear a mask
- Don’t take a vaccine
- Drive a car
- Protest taxes
- Propose different solutions to problems
To a modern liberal the list of harmful things I do to people I have never met or even been in the same room with is endless. Modern liberals believe they own the truth. They know how the world should work. Anyone who disagrees with them is therefore harming society. Remember millions of imaginary lives are lost to climate change every year.
In the wake of the Charlie Kirk assassination, I have been thinking about this a lot. Over the past week conservatives have expressed outrage over an outrageous act. Liberals have doubled down. To them Charlie kirk got what he deserved because of how harmful he was. Charlie said things they did not like.
We are to believe that Charlie caused real harm with his words. That doesn’t even make my rather short list of harm others can cause me, but it is top of the list for modern liberals. Conservatives believe you can say what you want but you can’t punch them in the face. Modern liberals believe that if you say what they don’t like you must be punched in the face, or worse.
Conservatives believe violence is justified when you are defending your life. Liberals believe violence is justified when you are defending your pronouns. There is no way to bridge the gap between these two positions.
