OK, I'm back but I don't know for how long.

You know, even trying to talk about anything political is like deciding to go for a walk in a mine field. No matter what you say, half the people are going to disagree with you and the other half agree with you, but with some differences.

So I won't start out where I normally would, with definitions for Liberals and Conservatives, and believe me I do have some. I would normally start there because without definitions, how can one discuss differences? You can't. But you can talk about the fact that these differences exist, and possibly, without too much shrapnel, where they come from.

I was looking for some kind of generic definition for politics. Now a lot of people have a lot of agendas when it comes to politics, goals, aims, etc. However, I believe that in general the purpose of the political process is to establish rules for a society which promote the general welfare of both the society and the people within it and to defend that society from enemies, whoever and wherever they may be.

There are many types of political systems (like tyrannies) and people in politics (those in it for the money or power, usually through corruption) which/who don't necessarily DO anything of this sort, but most of them still claim this definition for themselves. Most of us might be of the opinion that Sadam Hussein was a bad man, did bad things, yet even now he is insisting that he was just trying to establish peace for his country, to stop those who would destroy the government and hence the country, to kill the enemies of the people, both inside the country and out.

Let's assume this definition (or any one you want to come up with - most will include similar elements) is true. The problem with this definition and any others involving the actions of human beings is that they are open to individual interpretations. A person recently stated to me that there are universal Truths which apply to all people, in all places, at all times (all right, it's paraphased a bit). You know, I believe that may be true, and I certainly wish that it was, but regardless, I don't know for sure what those Truths with a capital "T" are.

Even the ones given to Moses aren't necessarily clear to us mere mortals (see past entry on capital punishment). So, if these Truths do exist, of what good are they if we can't agree on what they are? So, we'll just have to continue to deal with truths (little "t"). And that's where Liberals and Conservatives, and all the rest, come in.

Now Liberals and Conservatives, I think, are about like art. People say "I can't define art, but I know it when I see it." Well, some people. I can't define it and don't know it when I see it, but that's another post. So all of us have a definition of L&C (OK abbreviation?), but many of us has trouble assigning ourselves one label or the other. We want to be "centralist", whatever that is. A "centralist" is sort of like an independent, they don't really want to take responsibility for their true feelings, so they try to take the middle road in all things. Honestly, I don't pay them much mind.

So we have this spectrum between Liberalism and Conservatism, and it is generally defined in terms of a few core issues. We know what they are, but I really don't want to bring them up, because I've got enough bruises from being with my wife's family Christmas Day (actually, they're nice, just strange in their own way, like all families). And basically this spectrum comes about because everyone has different ideas about how to solve mankind's problems (although, surpisingly, it's really very few of us who have been asked to do so), and quite often this multitude of solutions can be narrowed down to 2 distinct types.

After a lot of thought, I've come up with what I think is a defining question for L&C's. That question is: "Do you believe that most of the problems of mankind can be solved through communication, understanding and compassion?" I think if you answer this question "yes", you're probably a Liberal and if your answer is "no", you're probably a conservative. And before angry barbs come winging in, note the words "I think" and "probably". If you don't want to fit in my definition, feel free to say, "Doesn't apply to me."

Now, this conclusion on my part doesn't mean that Conservatives don't want to communicate, aren't compassionate, aren't understanding, just that they don't believe that these actions cure most of mankind's problems. They believe it takes much more, in some cases, even force and/or killing. But mostly, conservatives come to the conclusion that many of mankind's problems are not solvable by ANY means (see my post on illegal immigration).

In another post I talked about the "evil" that exists in mankind. If you believe that people are basically good, then probably you believe that mankind's problems can be solved through communication, understanding and compassion. After all, "good" people would do that. But if you believe that people are basically flawed and must fight themselves to do good, you'll know that people lie about as much as they tell the truth, so communication is liable to lead to destruction as often as solution.

I believe that if you want to know how the world is, you have to look at the way it operates. As much as I like Star Trek, Babylon 5 is a much more realistic view of the future. Maybe that's the reason Star Trek was more popular. There has always been crime and criminals, there always will be. There have always been wars (this country has been in them under Republicans and Democrats), there always will be. There has always been poor people and there always will be. Liberals have never understood Conservatives and vice versa, and they never will.

Conservatives will continue to tear Liberals down as naive and unrealistic, Liberals will continue to tear Conservatives down as uncooperative and mean-spirited. Yet basically they're trying to accomplish the same ends through different means. Instead of making such differences personal, we should be looking at historically what worked and what didn't, and adapting our philosophies in light of these "proofs". But I'm not gonna hold my breath because...

"But things are different now." You know, the world changes, but people don't. It's still a person's decision if they're going to use drugs or not, whether the drugs are hard to find or society is awash in them. Same way with smoking, crime, killing, everything. The taking of responsibility, or not taking it, is a human condition.

If your solution to one of mankind's problems doesn't require you to take any responsibility for your opinion, it may not be as valid a solution as someone else's who does have that responsibility. Before we criticize those who have the responsibility to make some of these hard decisions, perhaps we should go out, get involved in politics and put our decisions on the line for judgment. Work hard for many years until you're in a position where you HAVE to consider all sides of the coin, where you're responsible, where people are examining you, your actions, your MOTIVES. Only then will you know whether you can stand behind your opinions and whether they really mean anything.