the imaginative conservative logo

Much has been written in recent years about the increasing polarization in American politics. Republicans have moved further to the right, while Democrats have moved further to the left. And seldom do they even attempt to meet anywhere in the middle.

The phenomenon is undeniable. It’s observable on a daily basis and confirmed by polling data. According to the Pew Research Center, Republicans and Democrats today are further apart ideologically than at any point in recent history. Increasing numbers on both sides of the divide see members of the other party less as honorable opponents than as threats to the nation’s future well-being.

All of this would seem to suggest that conservatives are consistently conservative across the board, while liberals are reliably liberal, no matter the issue. According to Pew, this has not always been the case. Their research suggests that, while consistency has long been the hallmark of conservatives, liberals have only lately been heading in the direction of overall liberal orthodoxy.

But some liberals seem to be slow to get with the new program.  At least that has been my experience. Granted, I’ve been a historian, not a social scientist, so perhaps my attempt to amend Pew should be taken with some skepticism. But here goes.

Amid the larger left-right divide, there seems to be a mini-political phenomenon afoot: namely, those on the left stubbornly hold on to one area of agreement with the right, and generally on one issue only. I have not come up with a term to describe this particular phenomenon, but I do know that it exists.

It’s also my sense that Pew is right—at least when it comes to those pesky single issues: Those on the right are more consistent that those on the left. Maybe it all comes down to thoughtful open-mindedness on the part of liberals. Then again, maybe not.

In any case, let’s stipulate this much: I don’t know about you, but I know more than a few liberals who are liberals pretty much across the board—with the exception of one significant issue. Why is this so? Is it really open-mindedness or is it something else?

In my non-social scientist’s experience, the key factor is one’s occupation and/or compelling interest. Writing in social “sciences,” the individual on the left departs from the conventional wisdom of the left on not just a single issue, but on an issue of singular importance to the individual in question.

Back to singular experience. I have a long time teacher friend who over the years has been a very consistent liberal—except when it comes to the classroom specifically and educational issues generally. A grade inflation hawk, he upheld standards as they collapsed around him. Demanding of himself, he made demands of his students, demands that were to be met rather than compromised. Is college for everyone? He would say no. Free tuition? No again.

Then there is the former student turned lawyer, who now has extensive prosecutorial experience. A Bernie Sanders liberal on economic and social issues, he is hell on wheels when it comes to law and order. Criminals, no matter their background, are to be caught and prosecuted, not coddled and excused.

Come to think of it, Senator Sanders himself is an example of the phenomenon I have in mind. His mindset exudes government controls, save for gun control, which factors into his calculations for re-election in Vermont.

Lest I leave out a few doctors I know, there are those who are persistent liberals, except for Obamacare, which has been a bridge too far. It is a law with which they have become all too familiar—and which they are all too worried about, whether as over-taxed providers or as over-taxed entrepreneurs.

One final category involves business folks who might be defined less as liberals than as SLIBECONs, meaning social liberals and economic conservatives. I know a few and know of more than a few. They are prepared to give way to government on any number of fronts, but they want taxes reduced and regulations relaxed. In sum, when it comes to business decisions, they want the market, meaning themselves, not the government, to prevail. So, SLIBECONS they are.

I can think of no comparable acronym that might capture the general phenomenon of “I’m a liberal, except for the issue that a) affects me most deeply; or b) I know the most about; or c) my constituents insist that I endorse.” But such liberals do exist.

Are they hypocrites? Not really. Stubborn? Perhaps. Open-minded? Not necessarily. Actually, the problem might be a lack of open-mindedness. As that inimitable English essayist G.K. Chesterton once put it, “I like to open my mind as I open my mouth—so that I can shut it again quickly on something solid.” Whether quickly or gradually, if the aforementioned liberals heeded that advice, they might one day arrive at the solid—or at least sobering—conclusion that something is amiss with liberalism in general.

The Imaginative Conservative applies the principle of appreciation to the discussion of culture and politics—we approach dialogue with magnanimity rather than with mere civility. Will you help us remain a refreshing oasis in the increasingly contentious arena of modern discourse? Please consider donating now.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
"All comments are subject to moderation. We welcome the comments of those who disagree, but not those who are disagreeable."
3 replies to this post
  1. Mister Chalberg makes good points about the polarization of the political scene and single-issue partisans. But his underlying premise is flawed: “Democrats have moved further to the left and Republicans further to the right.”
    In reality it seems to me that both parties have moved leftward over the years. The existing huge difference is that the Democrats have moved to the left at warp speed while Republicans have “crept” leftward. To wit, the Republicans now accept many positions that would have been considered “far left” thirty or forty years ago. The direction of political thought is the same, only the velocity is different.

  2. Perhaps they are the reverse of single issue liberals, in that they accept the party line in all things, except those things they understand.
    (As the author is too kind to suggest it, a less than endearing term might be “potentially salvageable” liberals. We might consider “educable” as far more flattering for recruitment.)
    I am reminded of “Knoll’s Law of Media Accuracy” by these voters. Happily for us (albeit unhappily for MSM,) social media has made it far easier to communicate with folks who have first hand knowledge.
    Dr. Page is all too correct – the GOP only seems right because the DNC has pushed the Overton window so far left that meeting in the middle cedes too much ground.

  3. Unhappily, it was James Macgregor Burns and his silly book, “The Deadlock of Democracy” which advocated realigning the old Democratic and Republican Parties of the Fifties and Sixties into ideologically consistent entities. A ‘political scientist’, the good gentleman was unable to comprehend that having conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans helped maintain stability, and reduced social animosity. (There was always balm for the offended soul when losing a battle back then.)

    Mr. Chalberg’s excellent article seems to have overlooked one “faction” which once was dominant, especially among blue-collar Democrats — the social conservative, economic liberal voter. Call them what you will, Hardhat Harry, GI Joe, these were the people who turned out to elect in 1956, 1960, 1964, and 1968. By 1972, ideological idiocy was starting to make inroads, so that one had the spectacle of the “savage Sagittarians for McGovern.” It was afterwards, as Nixon proclaimed I Am Not A Crook, and the media scented blood in the water, that the floodgates opened.

    Oh, for the long-ago days of simple corrupt machine politics.

Please leave a thoughtful, civil, and constructive comment: