What is a right-wing liberal?

Welcome to my foray into national domestic and Virginia politics! For any of those traveling here from the China e-Lobby, fear not, that blog is still my top priority, and the proclivity of posts will not be reduced by the existence of this one. I just decided I couldn’t resist the temptation to stay completely silent on local and other domestic issues, and rather than let that impulse bleed into the China e-Lobby (and dilute it in the process), I decided to start this one.

I should also include a quick note here for Canadian readers. The title is in no way a reference to any political party in the Great White North that calls itself Liberal. Here in the U.S., “liberal” is an ideological and temperamental term, not a partisan one. For the record, I wouldn’t be comfortable in any Canadian Liberal Party, national or provincial (that includes BC – where I would prefer someone bring back the old Socred Party – and Quebec: dans la Belle Province je prefere l’ADQ).

Now that that’s out of the way, I can begin to answer the question: what is a right-wing liberal?

At it’s simplest, a right-wing liberal is someone who is not comfortable calling him or herself a conservative, but finds (s)he agrees with them on most political issues nonetheless. This has happened, at least in my case, due to several factors, chief among them the unique political history of the United States and the strange historical amnesia of most Americans, both self-styled conservatives and self-styled conventional liberals.

The best definition I have ever heard of a conservative comes from the founders of National Review, who described their mission as: “To stand athwart history yelling, ‘Stop!’” Conservatives by nature and temperament have an aversion to change. This is not to say they reject all change; just that they are initially suspicious of it, and prefer, if you will, tradition for tradition’s sake, absent other factors.

Liberals, by contrast, prefer change for change’s sake (same absence assumed). They would stand athwart history yelling “Forward!’ – to continue the NR analogy.

The right-wing liberal is more comfortable with the liberal version of history. I personally have found (especially during this War on Terror) that change and instability have virtues that conservatives have long devalued incorrectly. In fact, I would surmise it’s half the reason so many “traditional conservatives” have come out against the Iraq war (but that’s for another post in another time).

As a consequence of this, most (albeit not all) conservatives seem to hold to certain views of America, namely that her best years are behind her, and that the closer one gets to 1776 itself, the better America was. This is not to say conservatives believe that America’s decline is inevitable, only that America has strayed from what she was, and what she should be, over the years. Frankly, I don’t share that view.

Thus, when it comes to the fundamentals of America, and society as a whole, I find myself to be a liberal. However, when it comes to politics (and political history) I find conventional liberalism to sorely wanting.

The conventional liberals have their own version of America and its history, and it is wrought with mistakes all its own. Liberals tend to see America’s best days as in the future, but only if it moves in a certain direction (usually more government involvement at home, and a less vigorous defense of American interests abroad). What all of us must remember (and so many forget) is liberalism in America did not hold itself to such rigidities for much of this country’s life. In fact, liberals were once receptive to all change; today’s conventional liberals seem only interested in changes to the leftist direction.

Right-wing liberals are not so narrow-minded. We see change in the unregulated market, for example, as being just as important and beneficial as changes directed from government. Unless a bureaucracy in Washington can reveal its brilliance (and enrich its employees), change actually tends to get more resistance from conventional liberals than from conservatives. The best example of this comes in energy. Conventional liberals hold the need for “alternative energy sources” and “energy independence” as modern articles of faith. However, they refuse to even acknowledge, let alone endorse, one of the most encouraging forces for energy independence – market-driven higher oil prices. Since there are no taxes or regulations involved, liberals of the conventional variety are deeply skeptical. Right-wing liberals have no such aversion to market-driven changes.

In fact, government action is a perfect measuring stick for the conservative-liberal versus left-right view of things. Conservatives today (including many “classical liberals” – which is why I don’t consider myself among their number) see government as competent only in a few things, and thoroughly incompetent in others. Liberals, by contrast, believe governments can do many things that are, at first glance, beneficial to society (wealth distribution, price regulation, etc.). Here, I am a liberal, in that I, too, believe government can do these things.

Where I part company with conventional, left-wing liberals is on the question of whether or not government should do these things. For conservatives, this question is somewhat irrelevant – why ask whether a government should do something it can’t in the first place? Conventional liberals share this disdain – if it benefits someone, and it can be done, why not do it?

For the right-wing liberal, however, the question is definitional: just because a bureaucracy can do something doesn’t mean it must do it. Redistribution of wealth will certainly help the recipient, but what effect will it have on the contributor? Will an investment that could benefit all society become impossible because the money was taken away for a redistributive program? Will a price regulation lead to a market imbalance that would be of greater damage than the problem the regulation addresses (think rent control, or the aforementioned energy example)? These questions lead the right-wing liberal to part company with conventional liberals on many issues at hand.

Thus, the right-wing liberal, without enough knowledge of history, will think of himself as a conservative (as I myself did for years). However, while right-wing liberals and conservatives agree on most issues, they do so for different reasons, and as such have different worldviews. This is best shown in American history: conservatives see the American Revolution as the flowering of an experiment over a century and a half in the making, as close to perfection as one could come. Liberals (right-wing liberals included) see it as the beginning of the experiment, with several flaws that must be corrected. Most liberals, however, imagine mistakes that don’t exist, even as conservatives generally deny mistakes that did (or in some cases do) exist.

Thus the right-wing liberal is someone who is forced to align himself politically with people who are fundamentally different, while opposing the efforts of those with whom (s)he would be much more comfortable on philosophical terms. It can be a difficult, and sometime maddening, journey but for the sake of the American experiment, it is one that must be taken.

So in the future, I suspect most of you will read these posts with one of two reactions: liberals will wonder how I could take the stands I take, and conservatives will be bewildered at how I got there.

Or, while I think I understand myself fairly well, I could have all of you completely wrong.