A Major Misconception

I just heard—for the who-knows-how-manieth time—somebody talking about the supposed "every man for himself mentality" that appears to be the motto for oh-so-many conservatives (TEA Party members included). Funnily enough, I do not tend to hear this kind of talk about Libertarians (maybe people figure they're already "fringe" enough the distinction doesn't need to be made—I don't know) though I would say that this sentiment sums up my tendency to differ with Libertarianism.

Maybe too, part of the reason people don't apply this perspective to Libertarians, is that they see the conservative mindset as embracing this concept and assume it will be considered inherent to the Libertarian movement as well.

All that aside, I want to explain why the "every man for himself" idea does not apply to me as a conservative (and where I cannot say with any certainty, I would imagine a good many conservatives will agree with what I'm about to say).

I see a fundamental difference between those who are "publicly liberal" and those who are privately so without a doubt. The question is, "What is the difference?" Well, in a nutshell, it appears to me that "public liberals" have a tendency to see the government as the be-all-end-all solution to pretty much every social problem that exists. I—on the other hand—consider the government to be typically less adept and efficient than individual folks who band together in solving many problems. To put it another way, I am a champion of "private liberalism." I believe that I not only can but should be liberal in my personal behaviors and attitudes without requiring others to do the same (in fact, even amongst those who say they are liberal, you would be wasting your time trying to get them to view that as a "private thing").

As a result of my beliefs, I consider myself to be a "public conservative," but a "private liberal."

There are multiple consequences in this way of looking a things. Among them, is the fact that I have to "keep myself in check" in both directions so that I neither give too much, or not enough of myself and my substance to others.

Another issue, is that people tend to view people like me as "heartless" because we cannot and according do not support the idea of the government "giving alms" for us. As I have said before, government charity is exactly that, money and other substance the government "gives away." What makes this a problem is, they have to take it from others first since government in and of itself owns nothing.

What makes this all worse, is that government is notoriously bad at managing anything (that—I believe—is why the founders gave them a limited role). Further, people who do things because they're paid to do them, and have to put up with a bureaucracy in the doing of those things, seldom do them as well as people working "from the heart" and doing the things in question spontaneously.

There is always a risk folks will "fall through the cracks—"but frankly, that's true whether individuals or government are or is doing the job. And individuals or groups generated for a specific purpose tend to be more able to adapt and in so doing, include the folks who are missed. As well, if one group fails, because there is not a "monopoly" on action, another may succeed.

It is said—and I have no idea whether this is true or not—that conservatives are "bigger givers" by and large. It that is true, the question in my mind would be, "Why is that?" As for myself, I would have to tell you that I have no idea whether or not I am a bigger giver than my liberal friends. This thing I do know, I make it my business to give—even at times I don't believe I can "easily afford it"—and in circumstances that you would not immediately count "giving."

As an example, most wait staff at places I dine or hang out tend to be very appreciative when I leave (and not because I leave a mess or make things hard on them either... I try to be careful to leave things in the best state possible). I try to bless wait folk everywhere I go—even if the service isn't great—because I know they do a hard job where often the pay is not so great. This is one of a few things I do to "spread the wealth."

I recognize and affirm the idea that "public liberal" folks want to help those in need. My problem is the method not the concept. I too, think it wisdom to help those in need—if for no other reason than that I may be one of them at some point in time (and there are definitely other reasons—some far more important), that's why I am a "public conservative" and a "private liberal."

I hope this blog helps to clear up some misconceptions about at least some of us that count ourselves conservatives.