69 million page views

Conservatism v. Liberalism: A Case Humanity Will Never Fully Adjudicate

Reader comment on item: Conservatism's Hidden History

Submitted by M Tovey (United States), Jul 30, 2018 at 19:20

Why have history's societies, both great and small, never reached a point of symbiotic balance in the rights of individual versus the rights of the collectives: to whom should the laurels of a peaceful coexistence be dedicated towards the betterment of society as a whole? A conservative; or a liberal. The lawyers answer-that depends.

As the text suggests, the build-up of post monarchic governments in the last few hundred years have seen struggles of how the 'haves' versus the 'have-not' faced off in the attempt to obtain power and how to dispense that power to the benefit of the entity that wields and exerts the power.

In the American form of government, the Constitution ascribes that power to 'we, the people,' under deference to the 'higher power' that is derived from acknowledging that humanity is a created essence of physicality, not a creator of that essence.

Thus, the argument of conservative values versus liberal determinations of inequities in the various realms of mankind will never be brought to a conclusion since neither side will concede to the other. The errant arrogance of human pride will constantly be brought to bear in an intellectual debate of the advantages each side believes is the final arbitrative determinant; that of which is more right when neither actually knows or will acknowledge a basic truth. Neither is inherently capable of making that determination. The argument can only be resolved when both recognize that the 'higher power' has the higher truth, which has already resolved the question; and only that recognition and application of that truth is made center and absolute to the existence of humanity. When the debate ceases to be intellectual, will mankind learn the answer then?

True judgment does not need to debate that which has already been judged. Seek the higher power, which is immersed in the singularly most antithetical part of the human existence-the existence of the Creator. Recognize that and come to terms that neither conservative nor liberal is the basis of the human condition; humanity needs to return to a reason for existence-to honor the LORD in heaven and live life in His love as He originally designed it-or be stuck in the debate forever and never coming to the truth.

Submitting....

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".

Comment on this item

Mark my comment as a response to Conservatism v. Liberalism: A Case Humanity Will Never Fully Adjudicate by M Tovey

Email me if someone replies to my comment

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".

See recent outstanding comments.

Follow Daniel Pipes

Facebook   Twitter   RSS   Join Mailing List

All materials by Daniel Pipes on this site: © 1968-2022 Daniel Pipes. daniel.pipes@gmail.com and @DanielPipes

Support Daniel Pipes' work with a tax-deductible donation to the Middle East Forum.Daniel J. Pipes

(The MEF is a publicly supported, nonprofit organization under section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Contributions are tax deductible to the full extent allowed by law. Tax-ID 23-774-9796, approved Apr. 27, 1998.

For more information, view our IRS letter of determination.)