Conservatism and Liberalism

In Charles Krauthammer’s column (“Fixing Doublethink, Left and Right,” Opinion Feb. 4) he muses over the fact that from his perspective, “conservatism” has a good image domestically whereas in those countries where communism is breaking up, the word “liberalism” wears the white hat.

Then, speaking from his own set of “silent assumptions” (like we all do), he says the confusion would be cleared up if all agreed that “conservatism” would mean more individualism and less state control, and “liberalism” would mean less individualism and more state control.

My problem as a liberal in accepting Krauthammer’s gratuitous definition of what I believe is that state control or lack thereof is a means, not an end. For example, I heard former President Reagan’s secretary of the Navy, John Lehman, no liberal, state in a recent interview that it was ironic that the Administration in which he served was the biggest booster of Defense Department spending, which he called “largely a socialist” undertaking.

Private enterprise and statism are good or bad depending on the way they are managed and the results obtained. Per se, they should be judged on their contribution to the end result towards which I am dedicated.

That end result would be a country (and ultimately a world) where we take seriously the phrase from the Declaration of Independence that “all men are created equal” and the line from the Bible commanding us to “love thy neighbor as thyself.”

So I would like to give Krauthammer some gratuitous definitions in return. Conservatism is very old and is fueled by self-interest, not one of man’s most ennobling characteristics but quite likely the one with the most power. If not regulated to some degree, it leads towards “government of the few, by the few and for the few,” as experienced under many Latin American dictatorships.

On the other hand, I am a liberal because I believe there is a spark of divinity within each of us, including conservatives. As in this respect, we are all alike and everyone deserves to be treated with respect, not just others belonging to the same social, political or religious organizations.

I have no illusions that I will be able to achieve this consciousness soon, or that others will. However, the country had made significant strides towards this goal between 1933 and 1981. The reaction that came with the last two presidential terms was a swift drop kick back a half-century to a less kind and less gentle time.

Let’s hope that we will soon “move back to the future” and resume the quest for the dignity of man.

FLOYD A. OLIVER

Los Angeles