Are you a Liberal or a Conservative? Many claim to be one or the other. However, minions, fearful of exclusive identities, choose a political modifier.

 

I know of many Liberals and Conservatives who would rather bear the excruciating pain of a root canal without anesthesia, than admit exclusive membership within either of these ideologies.

 

So, instead of an "either or", Liberal or Conservative, they opt for the title of “moderate.” Yep, it’s somehow more acceptable to be either Liberal-lite or Conservative-lite.

 

Does this mean that Conservative-lite equates to a Liberal Conservative? Or that Liberal-lite equates to a Conservative Liberal? Come on, what, precisely, does it mean to be socially Liberal but fiscally Conservative OR vice versa?

 

I’m a member of a generation of Americans whose memories are still intact, that remain intellectually curious, cognitively alert, and still possess emotion IQs that are relatively high.

 

A younger social order, albeit with genuine sincerity, seems to have adopted a growing propensity for political correctness. So, we’re not old; we’re “senior citizens.”

 

Maybe it’s because they think we can’t handle the “horrors” of getting old. And, no doubt, some can’t. But, sometimes reality sucks and, like it or not, we’re chronologically old.

 

Not only does it NOT bother me, or millions of others just like me, I wear the title proudly. Pre-dementia “old fartdom” enjoys at least one advantage over youthful ignorance: accurate recall of original definitions.

 

I say this because I’m willing to bet money on the fact that today in this country perhaps only one vote-eligible adult in one-hundred has any notion of what it used to mean to be a political Liberal.

 

Two recent events, over the past 3-weeks, have convinced me that I’m right in my assessment. Here they are.

 

The first was my ending up in a Conservative/Liberal brouhaha over whether or not “free” market economic systems necessarily result in diminishing a country’s social morality.

 

Then, about 6-days ago, someone posted an item on, in my opinion, an outstanding local forum, Talk Delaware. The post was titled, A Black Woman's View ~ No He Can’t.

 

You can read it on Talk Delaware or click here to read the original. I’m not going to re-post it here.

 

Relative to “free” markets and morality, we should clarify some things before we go jumping to too many unrelated conclusions.

 

I hate using the term “moral.” In fact, whenever I do use it, I put quotes around it. In the absence of broken criminal laws, universal agreement over what is moral does not exist. As such, it’s virtually impossible to determine what erodes it.

 

Shrewd politicians and some clueless members of their voter constituencies love to invoke morality. The press is in love with the term as well.

 

The point is, though, that there are myriad perfectly legal behaviors with which I disagree. They are not, however, absolutely immoral just because I find them offensive.

 

Still, other behaviors are definitively illegal to varying degrees of social implication. People who break laws are common criminals. We need to stop bickering over what’s moral or what isn’t and prosecute them.

 

And, in some cases, greater international society has decreed certain acts as crimes against humanity.

 

Neither Conservatives nor Liberals enjoy an inherent right to the “moral” high ground through self-declaration.

 

I have been a registered Republican my entire voting life—all forty-six years (I had to be twenty-one to vote).

 

To many who read this, it automatically means I’m a Conservative. By association, then, I “must” be a believer in small government, low taxation, and individual rights.

 

Likewise, I “must” be Christian, anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, pro-NRA, and pro-capital punishment. The list is much longer, but you get my drift.

 

Conversely, had I declared myself a Liberal, people would have routinely assumed me to be pro-big government, pro-abortion, pro-taxes, anti-individual rights, anti-military, pro-gay marriage, and pro-peace at any price.

 

The fact is, though, that I am mixed and matched in my feelings about such matters. A part of me endorses SOME stereotypical notions of both Liberal and Conservative positions.

 

I’m from the old school of liberalism; the one claimed by Adam Smith and Milton Friedman, not the one envisioned by modern-day Conservatives and Liberals.

 

As such, I have no problems with religion, though it is not my cup of tea. Nor, do I see the “free” market as a panacea for all our economic ills.

 

I see some merit in legitimate government regulation in the “free” market as long as it does not constitute regulation for its own sake, thus inhibiting business sector growth and productivity.

 

We’re in economic doo-doo right now precisely because we’ve permitted a self-serving Congress to diminish legitimate market regulations to almost nothing.

 

But, above all else, Smith/Friedman Liberals ALWAYS place a premium on individual freedom FIRST. The right of individuals to pursue their own life goals, without destroying the individual rights of others to do likewise, is always the prime directive.

 

Libertarians, of course, claim this form of liberalism today. And, to some extent, the claim is valid. However, I part company with them when they imply that a “free” market should be a survival of the fittest proposition.

 

Now, relative to the article, A Black Woman's View ~ No He Can’t, my read on Professor Anne Wortham’s political position, as well as her opinion regarding Barack Obama’s rise to power is different than some of the replies at Talk Delaware.

 

Make no mistake about it. I agree with her that Barack Obama is a genuine, card-carrying Liberal by ALL modern-day political definitions. His emphasis on the “greater common good” is a dead giveaway, as are his promises to make all of us pay our “fair” share.

 

The “greater common good” is important, but not at the expense associated with making individual rights subservient to it at all costs. The more we invite big government to erode individual rights, the less the “greater common good” is worth.

 

Professor Wortham enjoys the respect of her peers, both Conservative and Liberal. I certainly have no reason to doubt her academic credibility.

 

But, politically, we’re alike. I see her as precisely the kind of “Liberal” to which I refer above: an Adam Smith/Milton Friedman Liberal. She conveys this notion in her article.

 

I simply disagree with her implication that most who voted for Obama did so in order to elect a black man. I think that some did, but they comprised a very small percentage of the electorate.

 

I think we elected Barack Obama out of a sense of enraged discontent. Even though George Bush was NOT evil incarnate, more and more people began seeing him as such.

 

We grew weary of the politics of fear and discontent. We came to view it as the status-quo and we were sick of it. “You’re either with us or you’re with the terrorists” had finally grown old.

 

Some came to see a president growing increasingly fonder each passing day with the prospect of flipping the proverbial bird at both the Congress and the Constitution. It had to stop.

 

We decided that, while critical to our long-term survival, we could achieve national security without a blanket forfeiture of our habeas corpus rights.

 

Some provisions of the Patriot Act, once more of us caught on, began to grit on our collective sense of justice.

 

Black or otherwise, many saw—and most still do—Barack Obama as an articulate, intellectually curious politician, comfortable with situational complexity, and a viable force to change this country’s eroding worldwide reputation.

 

We were in the mood for change and Barack became IT. It may turn out to have been a big mistake. I hope not. However, I, as a voting bloc of one, intend to give him at least one term before I decide otherwise.

 

Joe Walther is a freelance writer and publisher of The True Facts. You may comment on his column by clicking here.