Truth in Labeling
by Michael Carl
Massachusetts Constitution Party Co-Chairman

Actor George Clooney's recent statements about taking pride in being a liberal have only highlighted the ongoing debate over the differences between liberals and a conservatives.  While it may be an ongoing discussion, the debate is somewhat artificial since actual policy practices have only served to blur the distinctions and muddy the political waters.  So what is the real difference between a liberal and a true conservative?  And what is a true conservative anyway?

A conservative by the historical definition is a strict constructionist, Constitutional conservative.  That means that the function of the government is exactly as prescribed by the United States Constitution.  The Constitution is to be literally interpreted for what it says and interpreted in the context of its meaning by the Framers.  By this definition, most of the United States' wars in the 20th and now 21st Centuries are "liberal" wars.  The Constitution authorizes Congress to declare war, and only after the declaration is the President given the authority to act as Commander in Chief.  Harry Truman was aware of this Constitutional restriction when he declared that Korea was only a "Police Action."  Yet, Korea, the Suez, Vietnam, the covert war on Cambodia, Granada, the First Gulf War and now the second, are unconstitutional, illegal wars--liberal wars.  Thus, the traditional definition of a liberal is anyone who does not strictly interpret the Constitution based on its actual wording and the intention of the Framers.

For example, the Constitution did not give the President the authority to buy land for the expansion of the United States.  However, the Constitution did give the President the authority to make treaties.  When Jefferson was President, he was contacted by Napoleon about the land we have come to call the Louisiana Purchase.  Napoleon wanted to sell Jefferson the land to raise money for his military conquests in Europe.  Jefferson saw it as an opportunity to greatly expand U. S. territory.  The problem was that the Constitution didn't give him the authority to buy the land, but he reasoned, "It does give me the power to make a treaty." 

So, our nation’s third president made a "treaty" with Napoleon that included a provision for the United States to pay Napoleon the purchase price for the land.  Thus, by our traditional definitions, Jefferson was a liberal.  Here is our first example of the lines being blurred.  Jefferson has been famously quoted as saying that, "The government that governs best, governs least."  He did not believe in the government usurping the rights and powers of everyday citizens by intrusive activity.  He did not believe government had the authority, nor did it have the right, to spy on its citizens, devise social programs that require huge bureaucracies and excessively tax its citizens to pay for their future enslavement.

Jefferson’s attitude regarding Constitutional interpretation illustrates the point that he was a classic liberal.  His views on the role of government vividly illustrate the tension between a classical liberal and a present-day conservative.  This tension brings us to our discussion on our present definitions of liberal and conservative.

The term liberal has come to describe anyone who believes in a large federal government, centralised economic planning, and something like the European model of the "Nanny State."  Employing this definition, Jefferson would be a conservative and George W. Bush would be a liberal.  For that matter, most of our presidents from Herbert Hoover through the current occupant of the White House, would be liberals.  However, based on some of John F. Kennedy’s policies, he would probably be more of a "conservative" than Bush. 

One of this nation’s most distinguished Supreme Court Justices, Joseph Story, could be regarded as a true Conservative.  Numerous opinions authored by the esteemed judge indicate that he was truly conscious of the government's limited power.  The William Rehnquist Supreme Court should have listened to Story's wisdom in Wilkinson v. Leland when it ruled on the infamous eminent domain case, Kelo v. New London case last year.  In his 2003 book Due Process of Law, John Orth quotes Story as writing, "We know of no case, in which a legislative act to transfer the property of A to B without his consent, has ever been held a constitutional exercise of legislative power in any state in the Union" (pages 45-46).  In that one sentence, Story affirmed the integrity and supremacy of private property rights over the will and authority of any governing body.  The esteemed 19th Century Justice refused to believe the Constitution authorised governments to seize people's land.

The blurring of the distinctions between liberal and conservative didn’t begin here however.  Nineteenth Century British Prime Minister William Gladstone became his nation’s first Liberal Party Prime Minister in 1868.  T. Walter Wallbank, Alastair Taylor and Nels Bailkey (1973) write on page 368 in their book Western Perspectives that Gladstone was a key defender of laissez-faire economics and that government should not interfere in business.  Gladstone understood that limiting government authority allowed  more freedom for the people.  If we take this at face value, Gladstone would be a "conservative."  However, Wallbank and company go on to record that Gladstone pushed Parliament to pass the Education Act, which established national standards for education throughout Britain.  With increased central authority over education, Gladstone proved that he was a member of the appropriate political party.  He was a liberal.

But alas, a further look at our English cousins reveals that Tory (Conservative) Benjamin Disraeli moved for a centralised, public healthcare system and expanded power for the labour unions.  So, the Conservative Disraeli would also be a liberal, for he championed aspects of the welfare state.  In the spirit of Benjamin Disraeli, President Bush pushed through the Medicare prescription drug benefit, and in the spirit of Gladstone, he engineered the debacle we call No Child Left Behind. 

With the distinctions between true conservatism and liberalism so thoroughly blurred, it is necessary to return to the traditional Constitutional definitions of those perspectives.  These are the safest definitions because the eloquence of the Constitution itself forms the boundaries.  Anyone who takes a stand on an issue based on a strict reading of the Constitution and its restraint of government power is a genuine conservative.  On the inverse, anyone who looks at the Constitution and finds a written right to privacy, a right to an abortion, homo-sexual marriage, national standards for education, an expansive bureaucracy, the war in Iraq, and the nanny state is a liberal in the truest sense of the word.

By the Constitutional standard, about 95% of Congress, both our Vice President and President, and all but two of our Supreme Court Justices are liberals.  God help us.

Michael Carl is a pastor in Wakefield, MA, a free-lance writer and a periodic columnist with the Wakefield Daily Item.  He is also President of The Heritage Alliance, a pro-family, pro-life, pro-limited constitutional government public policy group.  He lives with his wife and two sons in Lynn, MA.