Thoughts on the Struggle between Liberalism and Conservativism in a Constituional Government

Some thoughts on the Constitution and the state of the American nation on Constitution Day 2012

     I have always held that my values are the same as those of the founding fathers.  I believe in Republican government, the rule of law, and constitutional principles.  Further, I believe in individual rights to free speech, religious freedom, and equality in the eyes of the law for all. 

     Each of these ideas and the values they represent were born in late seventeenth and early eighteenth century Europe, during  the "Age of Enlightenment," as the creative thoughts of men with names like Voltaire, Rousseau, Montesquieu, and Locke.   Our fortune is that the founders of the American Republic had the foresight to adopt these ideas as the basis of the constitutional government they created for the United States of America in 1787. 

     In America these idealistic "liberal" principles became fact rather than rhetoric and our founding fathers created a country that was the first to allow men to control their own destiny.  Each of these enlightenment idea's increased the power of the people rather than the power of the government and set limits on the governments ability to intrude in the lives of Americans.  However, from the beginning there was a troubling question which Americans have struggled with for over 225 years.  That question, simply stated, is how much freedom is too much freedom or put another way how much liberalism will be allowed in our generally conservative society.

     Our Constitution was written in that long hot summer of 1787 to define what level of liberalism and individual rights would be acceptable in the new republic.  The Constitutional Convention had been born out of fear that the country, in a constant state of rebellion, would be destabilized and destroyed.  Daniel Shea, a Revolutionary War Hero, had lead Massachusetts farmers in a failed uprising against the government of that state over the issue of taxation.  Conservative forces in the landowning and business classes saw Shea's Rebellion as a clear signal that limits had to be set on individual liberties to prevent continued instability.  If the country was going to survive and prosper a strong national government was necessary to prevent internal discord, defend against foreign invasion, and ensure the free flow of commerce.  The Federalist, lead by Alexander Hamilton, argued for governmental powers that would regulate trade and commerce, provide for a common currency, provide for an executive officer to enforce the laws, and contain an independent court to settle differences between the many states of the Union.  In opposition the Anti-Federalist, leaded by George Mason and Patrick Henry, argued that a strong government would destroy individual and state rights and proposed that a Bill of Rights be added to the Constitution as a protection for the people and states from abusive laws.

     Over the years since that original argument took place; these two forces conservativism and liberalism have seen their influence over national policy  rise and fall.  At times they have inflamed our passions as the ebb and flow of conservative or liberal influence impacted on the lives of individuals and in some cases the rights of states. Tensions between the two forces lead to the creation of political parties and  laws such as the Alien and Sedition Acts or the Embargo of 1807 earned the disdain of the people.  In some cases the debate lead to open conflict, as in the case of the American Civil War, which divided the country and brought brother to kill brother.

     Today these forces of liberalism and conservativism are once more engaged in a struggle to define the future of our nation.  Many Americans would say that there must be a clear winner in the struggle this time.   I that is true a question must be asked and answered; would the nation be better off with such a winner take all scenario?   If we look to the founding fathers for advice in answering the question the best analogy would be found in the Virginia Statues of Religious Freedom, written by Thomas Jefferson.  Jefferson was concerned with the influence and power of the Anglican Church in Virginia.  At issue were the ideas of religious toleration and the separation of church and state.  When writing the Virginia Declaration of religious Freedom Jefferson did not seek to destroy the church but rather he saw the need to limit its power over the people of Virginia.  Many Virginians  did not practice Anglicanism yet were required to pay a tax to support it and even worse failure to belong to the Anglican Church meant a denial of voting rights.  Jefferson understood that the Anglican Church was necessary to the society but he would not accept its interference in the rights of individuals to practice their own beliefs or vote.  Jefferson observed that there was a thin veil of separation which existed between the church and the state, but he also realized that these institutions were mutually dependent and symbiotic entities which could not stand alone.  The Church needed the government to ensure its existence and the government need the church to teach moral values to its citizens.  Jefferson's very liberal document, the Statute of Religious freedom, ultimately ended the Churches power to deny individual rights but it also stated that the government had no power over the church therefore preserving the conservative moral force that the church held in the society.

In modern America liberalism and conservativism are and must be kept conjoined or yoked in a manner similar to Jefferson's concept of church and state.  American liberty is maintained by two compelling and powerful forces, which act as the opposite ends of the fulcrum.  Like the church and the state liberalism and conservativism are mutually dependent and symbiotic entities.  There can be no true individual freedom without liberalism, but liberalism must be balanced by an equal amount of conservativism to ensure order and stability.  failure to maintain that balance is the surest way to destroy the nation and the principles that it was founded upon.


Written by Mark R. Day 17 September 2012, copyright by Mark R. Day, all rights reserved 17 September 2012