Definitions

Faulty Arguments

Many arguments, especially in politics and religion, could be resolved or altogether avoided if the terms being used were properly defined by the two contenders. Instead of defining terms, they would rather use emotion-inflamed words, such as "freedom" and "fairness."

For example, take the question whether everybody is equal in the United States. Some will say Yes, because rich and poor alike are subject to the law. We don't have one law for the rich and another for the poor. But others would say, No, because some people are stronger than others, wiser than others and richer than others. One person is arguing for equality under the law and the other is arguing for equality in creation. We are equal under the law but not equal in creation. A simple definition of the terms would dramatically change the argument, if not eliminate it altogether.

Such is the fault and case among the bickering political conservatives and liberals. Unfortunately, both sides are equally at fault with this lack of definition. It's so dramatic that one would think liberals don't even know what a "liberal" is and conservatives don't know what a "conservative" is. The definition, in their minds, apparently is nothing more than a description of the issues.

Ask any conservative in general, "What is a Conservative?" Ask Limbaugh, Hannity, or even your conservative friend. The typical answer is "A conservative believes in fiscal responsibility. He is pro-family and anti-abortion." The problem with that is, liberals believes the same thing and you have solved nothing. You may say, "Wait a minute. Liberals are not anti-abortion." Yes they are. Ask a liberal. He or she will most often say that basically they don't think abortion is the best thing, but women should be able to chose for themselves what is right for them." That is, the liberal does not think abortion is the best thing, but they allow it.

Ask any liberal in general, "What is a Liberal?" The typical answer is "A liberal believes in freedom and equality. We all deserve the same opportunities in life." The problem with that is, conservatives believe the same thing.

In both cases, the person did not define what they believe but simply described some of the issues they champion.

Conservative

A conservative believes in personal responsibility. He feeds his family. He goes to work. He provides for health care and insurance. (Please forgive my using the masculine pronoun. The same applies to the woman as to the man.)

A conservative believes government is a tool, his tool. He and his community have banded together to do as a group what they all want done but one man is incapable of doing. Such items would include defense against foreign invasion and policing within the group.

Ultra, fringe or kook conservatives tend fervently to embrace issues that he identifies as "The conservative cause." It doesn't matter whether it's reasonable or not;. If it's an issue he embraces, he will define and interpret everything to support his conviction.

Liberal

A liberal believes in governmental responsibility. The government provides equal opportunity for all citizens and makes up the difference when a person falls short.

A liberal believes the government is the standard bearer. A good government sets good standards that benefit all citizens. the government makes up the difference when a citizen falls short.

Ultra, fringe or kook liberals, as the conservatives, tend fervently to embrace issues that he identifies as "The liberal cause." It doesn't matter whether it's reasonable or not;. If it's an issue he embraces, he will define and interpret everything to support his conviction.

Moderate

But what is a moderate? Moderates, like conservatives and liberals, tend to identify themselves by the issues, not by definition. They embrace some issues proclaimed by conservatives and some issues proclaimed by liberals. They are supposedly "in the middle."

You can have kook moderates, too. Remember, kookiness refers to issues, not definitions. A kook moderate can be extreme on a conservative issue and extreme on a liberal issue.

The real flaw with moderates, if you please, is that they let issues define themselves, rather than having clearly defined standards that will shape the issues. That's not to say they have no standards; they just do not have a comprehensive belief pattern which occurs with deliberate forethought.

What is not the issue

Do you see a problem here? Issues adopted by one party and opposed by the other party sometimes have nothing to do with being a conservative or liberal. Take the gay issue for example. Gay people can believe in personal responsibility over governmental responsibility, making them conservative. The place of gay people in American society is a human rights issue, not a political issue.

Fiscal Conservative, Social Liberal

Perhaps you've heard someone say, "I'm a fiscal conservative and social liberal." Again, that tends to come from people who let issues define who they are rather than the other way around. A "fiscal conservative" wants to stop or curtail government spending for social programs. A "social liberal" generally agrees certain liberal policies such as abortion. The problem is, both of those are policies and the great question, "Who am I?" remains unanswered.

Clear Thinking

Clear thinking and proper definitions remove argumentative dross that obscures and confuses the real issue. They do not prevent argument but decrease arguments considerably and allow contenders to focus on their actual differences. Perhaps reasonable conclusions could be expected, and the anger and invective removed.