American politics are going through a period where labels change, terms are redefined, and the lines of debate and conflict shift. Milton Friedman opined in Capitalism and Freedom that political views which were once termed “liberal” — small government, free trade, and the civil freedom of individual — are now being called “conservative.” He writes:

The nineteenth-century liberal regarded an extension of freedom as the most effective way to promote welfare and equality; the twentieth-century liberal regards welfare and equality as either prerequisites of or alternatives to freedom. (5)

It’s a shame. “Conservative” is almost a dirty word on today’s college campuses, because people simply don’t understand what it means. The initial reaction is always, “Oh, you’re a conservative? So you’re Republican?” No, I’m not. I don’t agree with the Republicans on a lot of issues, especially those involving social conservatism — I support abortion rights, stem cell research, and legalization of marijuana. I would love a reason not to vote for George Bush in 2004, but the Dems haven’t come up with any good reasons yet.

Conservatism isn’t a party affiliation — it’s a philosophy. It’s a way of looking at the world, and it has room for conflict and disagreement. I’ve tried explaining this to many students at Tufts before, and at best it produces a blank stare (”Wait, you’re still Republican, right?”). At worst, they tell me I don’t know what I’m talking about — more than once, I’ve been told that I don’t understand my own opinions (but anti-war protesters do).

So I was going through old issues of The Primary Source and I stumbled across this jewel by Jonathan Halpert: “The New Conservative”. I recommend everyone read it; it is a clear and poignant explanation of what exactly defines modern (21st century) conservatism, and what distinguishes it from both modern liberalism and modern Republicanism.