Classical Art History

In a recent discussion of a political nature [which I usually ignore], their insistence that George Bush is a conservative led me to state that Bush is not a representative of any conservative. The list participants talked about the speciousness of labels like “liberal” and “conservative” or “right” and “left.”



One of the artist-writers made this defense of liberalism (here I paraphrase):



* * * * * * * *

Parenting advocates are concerned with “non-negotiables” like wearing helmets or putting children in car safety seats and keeping teen-agers from smoking and required that children call home to say where they are. Such non-negotiables exist because people naturally try to get out of these restraints. Things like foul language or stealing may be tolerated, but matters of life and death are not negotiable.

Liberals fear that if the power of the government is reduced, then these and even larger non-negotiable issues like global warming, endangered species, rainforest depletion, hunger, and AIDS will not be adequately addressed. The free market is driven by personal gain and not by an altruistic concern over issues which could ruin life on Earth.



This does not mean that our current system of big government is working to remedy these problems, only that disempowering that government could make things worse.

* * * * * * * * * *



I think this writer has presented thoughtful comments. I’d like to see the writer, however, show more of an understanding of what it means to live in a free society that includes personal responsibility and individual choice. I’m confused why the writer would want to see more of something that admittedly isn’t working. I’m saddened that the writer believes that government controls are “altruistic.”