Richard, you've got yourself a tough one here!
First, let’s try to define the words themselves, as found in modern
definitions on dictionary.com.
From [ http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=liberal ]:
“a)Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox,
or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
b) Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress,
and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
c) Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism...”
From [ http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=conservative ]:
“a) Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.
b) Traditional or restrained in style: a conservative dark suit.
c) Moderate; cautious: a conservative estimate
…d) Of or relating to the political philosophy of conservatism...”
I'll note that a number of dictionary definitions, which I haven't
included in the excerpts above, refer to generosity, liberal arts, and
broad-mindedness (in the case of "liberal"), and moderation,
traditional norms of taste, and a form of Judaism (for
"conservative").
Basically, it looks like the political meanings assigned to “liberal”
and “conservative” may come from the two “ism” terms. As with
“Socialism,” “Nationalism,” “Fascism,” and “Communism,” we also have
“liberalism” and “conservatism.” Obviously, we need to define these
words as well, in order to see how they apply to the political
spectrum.
From [ http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=liberalism ]:
"a)A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans
and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and
political liberties, government by law with the consent of the
governed, and protection from arbitrary authority...
b) An economic theory in favor of laissez-faire, the free market,
and the gold standard..."
I'm going to quickly note the definition that refers to "liberalism"
as what appears to be laissez-faire capitalism. These days, neither
political party in the United States can claim to be for the
"laissez-faire" style of capitalism (otherwise, why would both of them
encourage so many subsidies to various industries?), but it's probably
safe to say that many people would associate "free market" more with
Republican conservative philosophy than with Democrat liberal
philosophy. Interesting, isn't it? This certainly indicates that the
definition of who and what is liberal/conservative has changed over
the years.
From [ http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=conservatism ]:
"a)The inclination, especially in politics, to maintain the
existing or traditional order.
b) A political philosophy or attitude emphasizing respect
for traditional institutions, distrust of government activism,
and opposition to sudden change in the established order..."
Merriam-Webster's online dictionary contains similar definitions for
these words, but also gives approximate dates for the words' origins.
According to these pages on Merriam-Webster,
[ http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=conservative
]
[ http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=liberal
...both "liberal" and "conservative" can be dated to to the 14th
century. Looking at Merriam-Webster's pages for "liberalism" and
"conservatism," however, we discover something much different.
[ http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=conservatism
]
[ http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=liberalism
]
It seems that the term "liberalism" predates the word "conservatism"
by about 16 years. "Liberalism" was coined in 1819. "Conservatism"
first appeared in 1835. Doing a search on these terms, I uncovered a
paper by Nikolay Milkov from the journal "Labyrinth" which confirms
this as true and appears to give a reference to a book. Note that the
paper itself is about Socialism (which Milkov appears to support and
which clearly influences his views on what is liberal and what is
conservative), so I've included enough of the surrounding text to
preserve the context in which Milkov writes:
"In opposition to the latter argument, some political writers believe
that the right antidote to these terminological problems is the
creation of a new terminology that will depict the political life of
today more correctly. In this connection it is stressed that the terms
‘conservatism’ and ‘socialism’ were introduced in English in one and
the same year, in 1835, and the term ‘liberalism’ in 1819; so they
were designed to describe the political life of the beginning of the
industrial era. Today, however, when we are on the threshold of a new
information revolution, riding on the crest of the ‘third wave’ of an
over-all change in human life, to use Alvin Toffler’s apt expression,
we badly need a new political terminology."
[ http://labyrinth.iaf.ac.at/2001/Milkov.html ]
Labyrinth, An International Journal for Philosophy, Feminist Theory,
and Cultural Hermeneutics, volume 3, Winter 2001.
He cites a work by B. Magee in the publication "Encounter" issue #66,
entitled "The Language of Politics" and published in May 1986.
While I couldn’t find any single concise statement from a reliable
source about the origins of these terms, they do seem to be European
rather than American in origin. If you don’t mind looking at a source
that resembles somebody’s class notes, [
http://faculty.uml.edu/awalters/43.312/Biological%20ideas%20before%20Darwin.htm
] (which seems to be a page of class notes from UML), cites liberalism
as “…equality, religious freedom…” and “based in early ideals of the
French Revolution,” while conservatism is “pro-monarchy, pro-church…”
This dovetails quite nicely with similar available information, so
I’ve no reason to doubt the source. Again, liberalism takes the view
of change (“religious freedom”) while conservatism looks for things to
remain the same (“pro-monarchy”).
Here’s another worthwhile source which gives limited background
details.
[ http://www.interlog.com/~girbe/libvscon.html ]
Essay “Classical Liberalism: The Best of Political Creeds”
Provides background on liberalism, classical liberalism, and
conservatism, with information about how these terms apply in the
United States and their origins in Europe. From the title, it’s
clearly obvious what the author prefers, but quite a bit of
information is available if you read between the lines.
Here’s an essay which discusses the origin of liberalism and
conservatism in Europe: [
http://216.239.53.104/search?q=cache:PRw7OT275AcJ:dspace.dial.pipex.com/town/terrace/adw03/peel/politics/cons.htm+liberalism+1819+conservatism+1835&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
]
OK, so now the big question is: What on earth does any of this have to
do with this history of “liberal” and “conservative” as political
definitions (and sometimes epithets) within US political history? It’s
my opinion that politics and philosophy doesn’t occur in a vacuum, and
as an answer, I’ve decided to link to one of Abraham Lincoln’s
speeches from 1859. Since it’s a rather long speech, I’m using
Google’s caching service to highlight the terms of interest within the
speech:
http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cache:qlJ9pNa-WjQJ:showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/cooper.htm+speeches+by+abraham+lincoln+liberal+OR+conservative&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
Lincoln builds up his point by discussing whether or not slavery
should be able to advance beyond the south. He accuses Stephen
Douglas’ supporters of taking the incorrect view that slavery can
advance beyond the south, and claims that the founders of the United
States may have disputed the issue, but that the majority (21 of the
39) clearly supported Lincoln’s views, and thus triumphed in the
debate. Then, Lincoln says that
“But you say you are conservative - eminently conservative - while we
are revolutionary, destructive, or something of the sort. What is
conservatism? Is it not adherence to the old and tried, against the
new and untried? We stick to, contend for, the identical old policy on
the point in controversy which was adopted by "our fathers who framed
the Government under which we live;" while you with one accord reject,
and scout, and spit upon that old policy, and insist upon substituting
something new. True, you disagree among yourselves as to what that
substitute shall be. You are divided on new propositions and plans,
but you are unanimous in rejecting and denouncing the old policy of
the fathers. Some of you are for reviving the foreign slave trade;
some for a Congressional Slave-Code for the Territories; some for
Congress forbidding the Territories to prohibit Slavery within their
limits; some for maintaining Slavery in the Territories through the
judiciary; some for the "gur-reat pur-rinciple" that "if one man would
enslave another, no third man should object," fantastically called
"Popular Sovereignty;" but never a man among you is in favor of
federal prohibition of slavery in federal territories, according to
the practice of "our fathers who framed the Government under which we
live." Not one of all your various plans can show a precedent or an
advocate in the century within which our Government originated.
Consider, then, whether your claim of conservatism for yourselves, and
your charge or destructiveness against us, are based on the most clear
and stable foundations.”
The original (non-Google-ified) version of this can be found at [
http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/cooper.htm ].
Somewhere, in the 24 years between 1835 and 1859 (when this speech was
given), the word “conservatism” appears to have made the jump from
Europe to the United States! What’s fascinating here is that it
appears that Lincoln and his opponents are both wielding the term
“conservative” as though it is a claim of honor, and both are trying
to be more conservative than the other. Does this remind you of
current debates between various wings of the Republican party today?
Just like the modern Republican party, “conservative” here isn’t an
epithet, but is something to be proud of. What’s interesting is that
both sides of the debate want to claim the rights to the term.
It’s worth pointing out that Lincoln’s own party had different
branches within its ranks. According to [
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USASradical.htm ], “Some members
of the Republican Party were not only in favour the abolition of
slavery but believed that freed slaves should have complete equality
with white citizens. They also opposed the Fugitive Slave Act and the
Kansas-Nebraska Act. This group became known as Radical Republicans.”
The moderate and conservative wings of the party were also against
slavery, but did not want to go to such lengths. See also [
http://www.civilwarhome.com/republicans.htm ].
Obviously, none of this so far addresses the use of “liberal” in the
USA, and from my research, it seems that the Radical Republicans may
actually have seen as the liberals in later years. It’s also unclear
to me who finally won the debate over claiming the mantle of
“conservative,” since in regards to the Reconstruction after the death
of Lincoln, there are many sources which refer to both “Radical
Republicans” and “Conservative Democrats.” See [
http://www.eiu.edu/~history/undergrad/constitution/radical_republicans_impeachment.htm
], another piece of course outline or material.
One source with mentions the Radical/Conservative split in the
Republican party (specifically in Texas) and hints as to its
resolution is at [ http://www.rra.dst.tx.us/c_t/Government/REPUBLICAN%20PARTY.cfm
]. According to this document, the Radicals pushed social programs,
while the Conservatives pushed for the status quo. In fact, many of
the Conservative Republicans became indistinguishable from
Conservative Democrats.
This shouldn’t be surprising. Consider that until the past few
decades, the “Solid South” was a bastion of support for the Democratic
party, mainly as a result of the Republican’s Civil War and post-Civil
War policies. During the years before and after WWII, we suddenly saw
a major shift as the Democrats took the issue of Civil Rights away
from the Republicans, and suddenly everything switched.
Here’s also where I seemed to have messed up slightly while writing
this answer. I’d cut and pasted a link to a speech by William Jennings
Bryan where he used the word “liberal” and seemed to question its
meaning. Unfortunately, the cat ate my homework..., ummmm, I mean that
little link seems to have gotten deleted thanks to a glitch on my
computer, and I can’t seem to locate it using Google again. If you’d
really like to see it, let me know, and I can try again tomorrow
night.
I hope this helps! Please let me know if I can provide more
assistance.
Search strategy:
[ ://www.google.com/search?as_q=liberalism+1819+conservatism+1835&num=100&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&safe=off
]
liberalism + conservatism + 1819 + 1835
[ ://www.google.com/search?as_q=speeches+by+abraham+lincoln&num=100&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=liberal+conservative&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&safe=off
]
speeches by Abraham Lincoln
/ephraim |
