Conservative and liberal form the basic framework of American political discourse. But despite this pivotal role, long-term abuse has drained them of any utility in defining political positions.
Liberal derives from the Latin “libertas” freedom. One would think that such a label would poll well. But as liberalism increasingly rejects the cardinal virtues that define human nature, it has become associated with ever-increasing levels of governmental power and control. To be labeled a liberal is, today, a political liability. Only one fifth of the electorate claims the label for itself.
This has given rise to the term “moderates.” These are the liberals of old who know that it is political suicide to embrace liberalism. In Wyoming, people used to run as conservative Republicans or moderate Republicans. But voters have gotten wise to the term. Now everybody wants to be seen as a conservative Republican.
As immigrants from liberalism seek political cover under the conservative tent, conservatism has experienced an identity crisis. Political philosophers like Russel Kirk and William F. Buckley have tried valiantly to rescue the term from utter meaninglessness. Philosophy geeks, like me, appreciate their efforts. And I have surprisingly many fellow travelers in Wyoming.
Nevertheless, most voters, pols, and pollsters don’t have patience for such niceties. They need quick and dirty terms that speak to the gut, not to the gray matter. Why navigate the nuances of Robert Nisbet when you can kneecap your opponent by calling him a “Populist”?
And so, rather than a robust discussion of founding principles and principled application to community life, political discourse has devolved into a steaming pile of meaningless terms. Terms are hurled not because they are clearly understood, but for their emotional impact. This covers both sides in mud and makes it difficult for spectators to distinguish the players.
Liberals became moderates. Moderates became conservatives. “Right-wingers” became “far right.” Now, there is a “further right.” But it is unclear whether this is further right than the right wing, or further right than the far right. Meanwhile, the other side struggles to find terms that are both accurate and emotionally detrimental to their erstwhile liberal opponents: leftist, Progressive, Globalist, Marxist, and Neocon. And liberals repurpose old terms and invent new ones like Religious Right, Christian Nationalist and Fascist.
Bewildered voters just want to know how each candidate intends to act in office. Instead of tossing around inscrutable jargon, will you just tell me which principles are non-negotiable and which can be sold to the highest bidder?
Enter the Party Platform. The first step in transparent government is a transparent platform. Candidates who are serious about limited government will also limit themselves with clearly defined principles. Candidates who are not serious about limited government will not set clear personal limits either.
If a politician wants “flexibility” with regard to party principles, he or she does not really have principles, at all. Rather than accepting vague flexibilities, voters should ask the candidate to define exactly which planks of the platform are objectionable, and which alternate principle he or she holds. Absent a clear answer to that question, the candidate is unprincipled and unready to govern.
Wyoming’s major parties have published their platforms online for easy access. The Democrat platform begins with a preamble that expresses “guiding principles.” The Republican platform begins: “WE believe there are Timeless Truths that will always inform and direct our party and our country regardless of current events and circumstances, changing strategies, goals, and leadership.”
The difference is stark. Guiding principles are flexible. Timeless truths are not. And while the first platform puts its guiding principles in its Preamble, the Republican platform sets them out in the sixteen planks that follow.
The first principle is “Life.” It holds: “All individuals are endowed by their Creator from the moment of conception to the moment of natural death with the rights to Life, Liberty, Property, and the Pursuit of Happiness. The only purpose of government is to protect these rights for all.”
Such a clear statement cuts through the fog of labels and counter-labels. It is unambiguous and something that a voter can grasp. The only other thing that a voter needs to know is whether a candidate counts it as a timeless principle or as a flexible guideline.
Take five minutes to read all sixteen planks and ask anyone aspiring to office whether he or she will be limited by these principles or not. You will be surprised at how much clarity this exercise will bring.
Jonathan Lange is a Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod pastor in Evanston and Kemmerer and serves the Wyoming Pastors Network. Follow his blog at https://jonathanlange.substack.com/. Email: JLange64@protonmail.com.
