Let's not break out the flip-flop game. Everybody's guilty.

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/15924.html

This is like accusing your opponent of being a liar. Everybody's a liar.

I've been meaning to ask the author of this blog a few questions. Solomon, you describe yourself as a conservative, or sometimes as a classical liberal. I'm curious how you regard people like Barney Frank, Jerrold Nadler, the entire staff at the New Republic, Oliver Kamm, the people of Engage Online, the writers and multitudinous signers of the Euston Manifesto, and so forth, who are proud liberals in the modern sense, while also unabashedly pro-Israel, pro-America, and anti-terror. How do you distinguish yourself from them?

Second, would you help do your part to keep distinguished the terms "liberal" and "leftist"?

http://www.halfsigma.com/2006/06/leftist_vs_libe.html

I'm already aware that you know the difference, and know that there exist right-wing liberals as well as conservative leftists. And I'm about as tired of hearing the word liberal used as an epithet as I am about hearing the word Zionist used as an epithet, as I'm sure you are as well.

I am, of course, negligent to forget Pierre Vidal-Naquet's, whose contemporary essays against Chomsky on the Faurisson affair are historic. Naquet was a particularly heroic French liberal, famously exposing France's behavior and torture in Algeria. Don't miss:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/31/magazine/31naquet.t.html

This author believes that we are at a particularly disappointing time in American politics in which both parties have produced particularly uninspiring candidates and neither appears capable of producing anything better. But while McCain and the Republicans aren't great, Obama and the Democrats are far, far worse. The party for a number of reasons which would result in a discussion too lengthy to get into now, and Obama because he was produced by that party and because I believe he is an empty suit in the mode of Massachusetts' Deval Patrick.

It's important to understand what words mean to a particular audience. I do generally avoid the "liberal as epithet" thing because I do understand the more traditional definition, but here in the US "liberal" has come to mean left of center if not leftist as the Democrat Party has itself drifted outward. So if I'm sure we're talking about US domestic politics, I wouldn't eschew using liberal in a way I might not in a different context (or, more likely, linking to someone else who is "speaking" in that way). My ability to change the use of this terminology is limited. I'm just trying to communicate meaning. Preserving the dictionary's virtue is secondary. I mean, I could start using "leftist" for everything, but that would do its own damage since I'd be more often using it to refer to mainstream left of center Democrats -- and thus diluting the "leftist" brand for whom I'd have to simply come up with a different word.

In broad brush strokes I believe (very generally) in lowering taxes (for everyone), less government interference and regulation in our lives, that welfare and affirmative action tend to be evils, that the Constitution means what it says and judges should leave legislating to legislators, that people have a right to bear arms, that Hate Crimes laws are a bad idea, that major societal changes like Gay Marriage should happen carefully and organically and not by sudden court fiat, that labor unions have often, in modern times, been hurting more than helping, that honest tax-paying citizens deserve compassion before illegal immigrants...that's a fair list off the top of my head. Some of these things are Classically Liberal and some are just policy choices that you could make an argument about either way.

So as far as Barney Frank, Jerrold Nadler and TNR go, I doubt there's much aside from their support for Israel that I would agree with them on. In America, "conservatives" tend to understand patriotism and the fight against evil far better than "liberals." That has been my experience. It wasn't my conservative friends, such as I had at the time, telling me "Well, in a way, we deserved..." the day after 9/11.

Likewise, you've thrown some different folks together. The guys at Engage (and let's toss in Norm Geras and Harry's Place) are outright Marxists (leftists) are they not? They also exist (along with Kamm) on the British political axis which is different. I enjoy their coverage of numerous issues, but suspect on many other things (such as their yammering on about solidarity with various labor unions (I didn't support Euston because of its language on this, for instance) and their disgraceful support of IDF soldiers who refuse to serve in "the territories") we would not have much to talk about.

They are sensible and focused enough that I can relate to them on the issues upon which we agree, and hope they lay off the others.

They are leftists, and on some things classically liberal, but that doesn't change the fact that in general, American Democrats are referred to as "liberal" even though it is a horrible misnomer since so much of the modern American Left is decidedly illiberal.

I don't think you'll find many examples of my using the liberal epithet, but as the election gets closer it's going to get tougher and tougher to avoid. It's not the same as the way Zionist has come to be used anyway -- as something with anti-Semitic overtones, and thus of importance to fight. Liberal...Leftist...that's all just terminology.

Also must be included Mark Jennings Daily, and, for that matter, a majority of American Jews.

My last question is about definitions. Forget what the dictionary says. How do you define "liberal", and "conservative"? In my experience, people on each side construct a sequence of straw-man versions of the other side and devote their energies to tearing down those straw men, never actually dealing with mainstream, human versions. The majority of liberals aren't moonbats, and the majority of conservatives aren't wingnuts, and to pretend otherwise is not honest, as I'm sure you'll agree.

I'm fascinated by much of what you've written. Of particular interest to me is why people decide to believe what they believe. The fundamentals, I mean. You'll agree that most people somewhere early on pick their axioms, and then spend most of their lives and energy building on those, rather than going back and modifying them. I suppose that everyone has his or her axioms, but I guess the ideal is for people to keep an open mind until experiments can be done and large quantities of data can be brought in. At the end of the day theory is useless until we've run experiments and can compare results. For example, I believe in free speech because when you look at societies today and history, it's a no-brainer that societies that severely restrict speech do rather poorly compared to societies that do not. When the framers called such truths self-evident, you can be sure that they also had an eye on the data from history. Most of the rights granted in the Constitution were motivated by the lessons of history.

So I'm a bit confused by some of your beliefs. You say that "In broad brush strokes I believe (very generally) in lowering taxes (for everyone)." Well, sure, I'd like to pay fewer taxes. Indeed, one might ask whether a person isn't entitled to keep the money he makes himself. On the other hand, everybody relies on certain public services — police and fire protection, street lights and storm drains, sanitation, highway/tunnel/bridge/infrastructure construction and maintenance, elevator inspections, a national mint, food/water/drug inspections, safe and clean tap water for drinking and plumbing, a public school system to educate and train one's citizenry and future employees, national defense, emergency services (and 9-1-1 services), a system to handle huge natural disasters, prisons, basic scientific research, failsafes that ensure a relatively stable market and economy, and these all require taxes. Indeed, our infrastructure in this country is collapsing, and somebody has got to pay to fix it. We're fighting important wars, and most of the money we're using is being borrowed. During the heyday of American growth, the 1950s, the tax rate on the top bracket was anywhere from 70 to 90%, a far leap from the 35% or lower it is today, so it cannot be argued that high taxes necessarily, in all cases, make it impossible for America to prosper. So I can't understand how anyone can have a blanket belief that taxes should be low, or that they should be high. Isn't it more sensible to take a case-by-case attitude toward taxes?

You say that you believe in "less government interference and regulation in our lives". Well, the government can enter our lives in several ways, both personal and economic. Should the government ever be in our bedrooms, dictating the relations between consenting adults? Should the government keep cocaine illegal, or meth? Should the government outlaw marriage between elderly people because they cannot procreate? Should the government be allowed to listen to citizens' phone calls without always getting warrants, or arrest and indefinitely detain citizens without due process?

As for economic regulation, well, we need it sometimes. The free market is like nuclear fusion. It's perhaps the most powerful and renewable force in human society, but if you just set it off and let it go, you sometimes get horrible chain reactions that lead to great destruction. Standing athwart the free market is silly, as the communists eventually discovered. But harnessing the market and channeling it in smart ways, say by tweaking incentive structures, just seems the obvious thing to do, and sometimes that means regulations. And sometimes it even works. I'm sure you can think of several examples, both where it has worked and where it hasn't. So I can't understand having a blanket belief about the correctness of government economic regulation, either.

Finally, the comment statement you make that the "Constitution means what it says and judges should leave legislating to legislators" seems very puzzling to me. How do you interpret the Ninth Amendment, which is in the original Bill of Rights? Just which rights are to be regarded as part of the unenumerated rights? That's a very hard question that nobody knows the answer to, and it's a huge question! Is there a right to drive a car in there? Or a right to an abortion? Or a right to gay marriage? Or a right to own fireworks? Or a right to take drugs? Or a right never to be tortured, even if it's not punitive? For that matter, what does the Eighth Amendment mean? Or the numerous ambiguous passages regarding States' rights in Article IV of the Constitution? Do they mean that States must recognize gay marriages performed in other states, as the sections would seem literally to imply? Who gets Habeus Corpus, as described in Article I, Section 9? It doesn't say. Just citizens? Or all people that the US comes into contact with? What kinds of activities are considered "searches" in the Fourth Amendment? What kinds of weapons are considered "arms" in the Second? Are Uzis? Bazookas? Or just muskets? How do we know where to draw a line? So just saying that you believe the "Constitution means what it says" is almost as senseless as saying that the Bible means what it says. Nobody believes that. Have you read Leviticus?

And when it says in Article 6 that all treaties entered into by the US shall be the "supreme law of the land", what does that mean about the Geneva Conventions Treaty? The US signed that. Does that mean that the Geneva Conventions Treaty is the supreme law of the land? And where does it say in the Constitution that we can ignore certain parts of the Constitution when our president decides to do so? Do you believe we should do that? Is that taking an originalist view of the Constitution, or a pragmatic one?

So what term does one use for somebody who refuses to take a blanket stand on any of those issues, and instead pledges to decide on them case-by-case, by making a good-faith effort to amassing the available evidence and only then making a determination? Is that a liberal or a conservative attitude? Example: Health care. I suppose the "liberal" attitude is that all people must have guaranteed health coverage, and the conservative opinion is that the government shouldn't be starting up a new bureaucracy to do that. What about establishing a commission to compare and contrast the health care systems of the other 191 countries in the world (really a staggeringly huge experiment being run by the whole world for many decades now and yielding huge quantities of data), comparing wait times and cost and coverage and outcomes and health statistics and waiting until then to make a judgment one way or the other about the best way to proceed? Is that a liberal or a conservative opinion?

I'm taking requests for unenumerated rights guaranteed by the Ninth Amendment. Anyone have any candidates? The right to name our children? The right to eat vegetables? The right to die for those with painful terminal?

terminal diseases?

There are lots of other examples in the Constitution, as I'm sure you're well aware. Article I, section 8 gives Congress the responsibility of determining rules for captures on land and sea. So how can the executive branch set up secret prisons in Europe and Asia, regardless of whether it's helpful or not to national security? Padilla was one of the bad guys, definitely, but he was also a US citizen, and detaining him indefinitely without due process (in the end, for three years) directly violated Amendments 5 and 6, as well as Section 9 of Article I. And Article II makes it very clear that the president is allowed only to sign a bill or veto it, not add "signing statements" as so many presidents have done.

This is not to single out the present president at all, by the way. Many presidents, congresses, and judges have been loose on obeying the Constitution here and there. I mean, look at what FDR did to the Japanese-American community, just for starters! I hope this isn't taken as a liberal or a conservative issue. And in FDR's case, in hindsight (if it was unfortunately not clear to people in charge at the time) he was clearly wrong. Indeed, the government has since formally apologized for what it did to the Japanese-American community. But what about the activist court that added the famous "clear and present danger clause" to the First Amendment? Where is that written in the Constitution?

Anyway, I appreciate your taking the time to answer these questions. Perhaps we can agree that Zionism, broadly speaking, is solidly grounded in huge amounts of historical data, and therefore has more than earned our support. I certainly wouldn't support it otherwise, and I'm assuming nor would you.

I'm sorry after all that to appear to brush you off, but I'm not interested in a constitutional or policy discussion to that level of nitty-gritty. I would say you seem to have me confused with a Libertarian. I support Republicans, not Libertarians, McCain, not Ron Paul, so of course I believe that there's a role for government and some regulation, and that the Constitution is an over-arching document that requires the passage of laws to flesh it out -- just not as much as you, a liberal in the American policy sense, believe.

You say "just not as much as you, a liberal in the American policy sense, believe."

First question. Why do you say that I'm a liberal? I mean, I brought up many names of liberals for the sake of an argument, but where did I espouse points of view on American policy that are liberal or conservative? On taxes I said that one couldn't make blanket statements about their needing to be high or low. On regulation I made clear that sometimes it is good, and sometimes it is bad. I made clear my belief in the power and value of the free market.

But I guess this brings me back to my earlier question. If I'm a liberal or a conservative, well, then these terms must have some kind of definition. What is your definition? What definition am I satisfying? I'm curious because this goes to the heart of many of the issues that arise on blogs like yours. And I'm curious *why* you have come to believe those basic axioms that you have listed in your earlier posting, the fundamental stuff about taxes, the Constitution, arms, and so forth.

My point about the Constitution was ill-served by my choice of getting involved in nitty-gritty details. So let me stay broad, and just go back to the Ninth Amendment, perhaps the single most important and confusing part of the Constitution/Bill of Rights. What does the Ninth Amendment mean? And why? This is one of the really big questions, not nitty-gritty stuff. What are our unenumerated rights? How do we decide what they are?

There's also another big point here that I was trying (poorly) to make. The reason many people cannot identify themselves as conservative or liberal is because the moment they start trying to list rigid axioms of one side or the other, many of the issues I raised immediately start coming up. One ends up having to go back to even more basic, simple notions---for example, it is good when people are for the most part healthy, can work a decent job, are safe and secure, and are free from fear. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Liberty and justice for all. Little more can be said as a general axiom, as ensuring the aforementioned principles, which transcend political categories, seem to require dealing with issues on a case-by-case basis, looking at the evidence, running large-scale experiments, and then picking from the available options without regard to political orthodoxy.

So I'm curious why people take on more principles as axioms. Like a general principle taxes, or regulation, or arms, and so forth, and base policies on adherence to those, higher-level principles. Why do people pick such additional axioms, and how do they pick them?

And that brings me here, and to this question: Why did *you* pick these positions, and how did you arrive at them? That's it.

Only a liberal would argue that a return to a 70% tax rate would be anything but a bad thing, perhaps I misread you. Liberals also have a tendency to think that the perfect society is just one more page in the law books away (similar to leftists), a conservative would tend to recognize the enormity of our government (particularly the federal government) and argue the opposite.

You seem to be hung up on not wanting to label anyone, and to a certain extent I agree. Though I may call myself a "conservative," the idea that you must therefore know my stands on an entire check list of issues is likely a mistake, as it would be for someone who described themselves as a liberal -- but the tendency would be there...the percentages if you will.

We are talking here about domestic politics, and the political battle between Democrats (liberals) and Republicans (conservatives). While individuals may not be absolutely predictable (may cross party or ideological ground), they do tend to adopt an overarching ideology that informs their choices on particular policies. It doesn't always apply (particularly on local or nitty-gritty issues), but in the big picture, it's relevant, and I as an individual believe those who describe themselves as conservative have it right more often than not, hence my support for the Republicans.

Successful political parties in the US use ideology, but it's almost a second place to their purpose of simply winning elections and using their machines to do the governing day to day -- they can compromise. This is distinct from unsuccessful political parties like the Libertarians who tend to hew to ideology to such an extent that they have trouble getting elected dog catcher.

Successful ideology does provide a coherency and a guide that can inform policy in a useful way, however.

While I'm against labels to the extent that one would say that, "Oh, TNR, that's a liberal publication," or "Engage, they're leftists, and therefore I will never listen to what they say," in the context of an American election, the labels do have meaning and are not without use or meaning.

In answer to your last (posted while I was typing). If you read my about me page you'll see I live in Massachusetts and grew up quite liberal and am still surrounded by same. I've come to believe they are wrong about most things -- a number of them enumerated in my first reply), and that's why my thinking changed.

By the way, for those who are interested in learning more about the liberal/conservative labels and their relevance to society, especially the way that the majority of Americans self-identify as conservatives but nonetheless as a majority support policies that would be considered by most people to be liberal, be sure to check out:

http://people-press.org/report/?reportid=312
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2007/03/twice_as_many_americans_conservative_over_liberal/
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=is_america_a_centerright_nation

I appreciate your reply. I made a comment earlier about the tendency I saw of people to construct absurd straw-men versions of the opposition, and then tear them down. You say "Only a liberal would argue that a return to a 70% tax rate would be anything but a bad thing." And you say "Liberals also have a tendency to think that the perfect society is just one more page in the law books away." I've met a lot of liberals, but the majority I've met (I can't speak for all of them) don't believe that a 70% tax rate would be a good idea, or that a utopia is achievable, let alone by adding a page to the law books. Certainly I don't believe those things. Does that mean I'm not a liberal, in your opinion? Does that mean the majority of liberals I know aren't, in fact, liberals?

Indeed, I often hear things like "only a conservative would think that guns and war are the answer to all our problems" and "Conservatives think that government is necessarily bad." But these are likewise straw men. I mean, do you believe these things?

Nonetheless, what I was arguing before is that the blanket statement that high taxes are uniformly bad is unwise. Yes, generally high taxes are bad. But America once survived them, and, indeed, prospered under such high taxes. That's when most of our infrastructure got built. So it cannot be argued that they are necessarily completely bad in all circumstances. If you're fighting WWII, they might not be the worst idea in the world, for example. If I had to choose between going to war in Iraq and Afghanistan without raising taxes for the war, and doing it by raising taxes for the war (as McCain once supported), I'd probably tend to the latter. I mean, if it's worth fighting, it's worth paying for!

Perhaps one could say that a typical leftist position is that the government should necessarily raise taxes and play a greater role in regulating and managing society. That sort of planned economy is at the heart of leftism. Saying that high taxes are uniformly bad is libertarianism. Saying that you have to choose case-by-case, given a knowledge of the circumstances, well, that just seems reasonable, right? I mean, is your position on taxes contingent on the circumstances of the situation?

Some of you may know who said these words. Others will plug them into Google and find out. But maybe a few will take a moment and read them first, and ask themselves whether they were uttered by a leftist or a rightist, without being unduly influenced one way or the other by preconceptions about the writer. Are there statements or words in this text with which you agree or disagree?

"In other words, the use of patriotism as a political sword or a political shield is as old as the Republic. Still, what is striking about today's patriotism debate is the degree to which it remains rooted in the culture wars of the 1960s – in arguments that go back forty years or more. In the early years of the civil rights movement and opposition to the Vietnam War, defenders of the status quo often accused anybody who questioned the wisdom of government policies of being unpatriotic. Meanwhile, some of those in the so-called counter-culture of the Sixties reacted not merely by criticizing particular government policies, but by attacking the symbols, and in extreme cases, the very idea, of America itself – by burning flags; by blaming America for all that was wrong with the world; and perhaps most tragically, by failing to honor those veterans coming home from Vietnam, something that remains a national shame to this day.
"Most Americans never bought into these simplistic world-views – these caricatures of left and right. Most Americans understood that dissent does not make one unpatriotic, and that there is nothing smart or sophisticated about a cynical disregard for America's traditions and institutions. And yet the anger and turmoil of that period never entirely drained away...
"Given the enormous challenges that lie before us, we can no longer afford these sorts of divisions. None of us expect that arguments about patriotism will, or should, vanish entirely; after all, when we argue about patriotism, we are arguing about who we are as a country, and more importantly, who we should be. But surely we can agree that no party or political philosophy has a monopoly on patriotism. And surely we can arrive at a definition of patriotism that, however rough and imperfect, captures the best of America's common spirit.
"What would such a definition look like? For me, as for most Americans, patriotism starts as a gut instinct, a loyalty and love for country rooted in my earliest memories...
"...Not only because, in my mind, the joys of American life and culture, its vitality, its variety and its freedom, always outweighed its imperfections, but because I learned that what makes America great has never been its perfection but the belief that it can be made better. I came to understand that our revolution was waged for the sake of that belief – that we could be governed by laws, not men; that we could be equal in the eyes of those laws; that we could be free to say what we want and assemble with whomever we want and worship as we please; that we could have the right to pursue our individual dreams but the obligation to help our fellow citizens pursue theirs...
"I believe those who attack America's flaws without acknowledging the singular greatness of our ideals, and their proven capacity to inspire a better world, do not truly understand America.
"Of course, precisely because America isn't perfect, precisely because our ideals constantly demand more from us, patriotism can never be defined as loyalty to any particular leader or government or policy. As Mark Twain, that greatest of American satirists and proud son of Missouri, once wrote, 'Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.'...
"Beyond a loyalty to America's ideals, beyond a willingness to dissent on behalf of those ideals, I also believe that patriotism must, if it is to mean anything, involve the willingness to sacrifice – to give up something we value on behalf of a larger cause...
"We must always express our profound gratitude for the service of our men and women in uniform. Period...
"We must remember, though, that true patriotism cannot be forced or legislated with a mere set of government programs. Instead, it must reside in the hearts of our people, and cultivated in the heart of our culture, and nurtured in the hearts of our children...
"But it is our responsibility as Americans and as parents to instill that history in our children, both at home and at school. The loss of quality civic education from so many of our classrooms has left too many young Americans without the most basic knowledge of who our forefathers are, or what they did, or the significance of the founding documents that bear their names. Too many children are ignorant of the sheer effort, the risks and sacrifices made by previous generations, to ensure that this country survived war and depression; through the great struggles for civil, and social, and worker's rights.
"It is up to us, then, to teach them. It is up to us to teach them that even though we have faced great challenges and made our share of mistakes, we have always been able to come together and make this nation stronger, and more prosperous, and more united, and more just. It is up to us to teach them that America has been a force for good in the world, and that other nations and other people have looked to us as the last, best hope of Earth. It is up to us to teach them that it is good to give back to one's community; that it is honorable to serve in the military; that it is vital to participate in our democracy and make our voices heard.
"And it is up to us to teach our children a lesson that those of us in politics too often forget: that patriotism involves not only defending this country against external threat, but also working constantly to make America a better place for future generations...
"In the end, it may be this quality that best describes patriotism in my mind – not just a love of America in the abstract, but a very particular love for, and faith in, the American people. That is why our heart swells with pride at the sight of our flag; why we shed a tear as the lonely notes of Taps sound. For we know that the greatness of this country – its victories in war, its enormous wealth, its scientific and cultural achievements – all result from the energy and imagination of the American people; their toil, drive, struggle, restlessness, humor and quiet heroism.
"That is the liberty we defend – the liberty of each of us to pursue our own dreams. That is the equality we seek – not an equality of results, but the chance of every single one of us to make it if we try. That is the community we strive to build – one in which we trust in this sometimes messy democracy of ours, one in which we continue to insist that there is nothing we cannot do when we put our mind to it, one in which we see ourselves as part of a larger story, our own fates wrapped up in the fates of those who share allegiance to America's happy and singular creed."