Forget "liberal" versus "conservative." We're in the midst of an historic realignment of political partisans.
"On Capitol Hill, the debate over encryption has created some unusual political alliances," declares a recent New York Times editorial. "Many conservative Republicans," the editorial continues, "have stood with leaders of the high-tech industry to oppose any kind of ban on encryption within the United States and to support a loosening of export controls on encryption technology." The traditionally liberal New York Times finds itself on the same side as those conservative Republicans, as it too stands with high-tech leaders in adamant opposition to government control of encryption. In fact, the editorial expressing this opposition could easily be mistaken for a Phyllis Schlafly commentary.
It's a veritable paradigm shift. And it's about time. After all, it's been over a hundred years since the labels "liberal" and "conservative" really made sense. Latterday liberals advocating governmental solutions for every imaginable ill have little in common with the liberals of the 18th Century who drafted our Constitution, providing for a strictly limited federal government, and attached to it a Bill of Rights protecting the sovereignty of the states and the liberty of the people against encroachments from that government. Also misnamed are contemporary conservatives who seek not to maintain the status quo but to radically reduce the army of federal bureaucrats who harry us. With liberals who are really conservative and conservatives who are really liberal, it has long been impossible to communicate clearly using those terms.
We may not have to much longer. That's because it's becoming increasingly common for labeled liberals to find themselves marching arm in arm, at least on an ad hoc basis, with so-called conservatives. Whether it's encryption, Internet access, trade with China, patent protection, or a host of other issues, the putative antagonists are being forced to acknowledge something that should have been recognized decades ago -- which is that the ideological tags don't fit the philosophies. The terms "liberal" and "conservative" circumscribe our thought processes, making us more susceptible to demagoguery and less receptive to fruitful new alliances.
If not liberal and conservative, what shall we call ourselves? How will we know which side we're on? How will we tell friend from foe? What terms can we use to distinguish our perspective from that of our opponents? Why not individualists and statists? Isn't that what it all boils down to -- which takes precedence, which serves the other -- the individual or the state? More and more post-modern liberals are recognizing that the power of the state must be limited to prevent this servant of the people from becoming our oppressor. Conversely, there is a growing number of conservatives who seem perfectly willing to augment the power of the state for any ends they may think justify that great risk. Liberal ranks and conservative ranks both include individualists and statists, but the freedoms we enjoy as Americans would be far more secure if the individualists from both sides would join forces.
