"But you see I would describe that difference in another way. I think I am really more critical of the political process than you may be."

I'm not talking elections. I'm talking the down and dirty way that little things, the petty details get decided in the real world. Whenever a matter of public policy or public spending is decided, someone from some power base or another is there to try to influence it. Unfortunately, it's either that or the market, smoky back rooms or random interactions of market forces. Either produces strange and often sad anomalies. Neither is trust worthy. (BTW, some of the smoky back rooms I know are controlled by famously liberal politicians. They're actually the best at it.)

The simple truth is that most of us choosing one label or another are simply deciding which special interest group or power base they are aligned with. Unions are one of the most inherently conservative organizations on earth if the term "conservative" is used in an objective way. "Free trade" has always been a liberal issue, except that now it's the province of big business, icons of conservatisim. But if you're pro-union, you're a liberal; if you're pro-business, you're conservative. This renders the labels are nearly meaningless.

And where you stress values as a liberal hallmark, conservatives stress principles. I'm not sure what the difference is. I love a story Chris Matthews, the liberal talk show host on MSNBC, told a couple of months ago. He said, "Big time liberals like ideas and the masses, but they don't have time for people, they don't have time for the little guy. Big time conservatives aren't so big on ideas, but they love the little guy. Ronald Reagen, if you went up to him with a sob story he'd take the time to listen to you and more likely than not you'd go away with a check. No big time liberal would ever do that."*

A friend claims he can tell which way you see yourself based on how you answer this question: is it's governments responsiblity to solve problems are ours as individuals? Matthew's story reflects the perceived liberal dependence on government to enforce values and the conservative notion of self reliance as guiding principle. You can point out that some social evolutionists who think that the poor and the weak deserve what they get, but they're a backwater minority. There are some liberals who think that anyone showing abnormal success should be beaten back what ever the greater cost to society. There are clearly selfish, greedy, foolish bastards in both camps.   I'm on record as to what I think about extremists.

Government should be limited, market forces tempered. I'm a moderate activist who decides issues based on my values and my principles, decides for myself not based on the thinking of a spin doctor or talking head. I vote that way with my money and my time, the kind of votes that count and make a difference. Feel free to call yourself what you will, just don't make assumptions on what I think about any issue. People who do are often surprised.

This has been interesting, but I'm sure you've been aware for some time that we're simply hitting the shuttlecock back and forth. Neither of us is going to really change anything the other thinks. Feel free to take the last word.


*Paraphrased, but the gist is accurate.