Allow me to introduce myself. My academic background consists of English and Philosophy. My philosophical background consists a wavering between the phenomenological and analytic approach. However, I do feel that both methods can be used while investigating the same phenomenon.
Recently, I have been conducting independent research on the history of American ideals -- thoughts on religion, economics, foreign policy, freedom, etc. This research began as a result of conservative ideology. Conservatives in the media (Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, etc.) often claim that their ideals stem from the "Founding Fathers." However, this implies two things. One, citizens during the Revolutionary Period were unified in such ideals. Two, if conservatives are wrong about their history, many of their claims lose their foundation. In other words, if the only justification that one has is that their ideas are right because a historical figure said so and it later becomes evident that that historical figure never said such a thing, the argument fails. Thus, capitalism (though its never mentioned what type of capitalism they are talking about) is never justified by the above political commentators through philosophical arguments/principle or facts, but rather it is a tradition that all Revolutionary Citizens embraced.
Hence, the purpose of this blog will be to analyze conservative commentators and fact check their historical comments. It will become clear that what conservatives want to 'conserve' is simply numerous ideologies that have occurred throughout the history of America. What conservatives have called tradition is only what their conservative ancestors have embraced at a particular time. It can be argued that conservatives are destroying the tradition of separation of church and state, but of course they would say that they are returning tradition at the start of the country. This, I would argue, that Hamilton and the Federalists controlled the Banks and manufacturing, but conservatives call this socialism. Consistency has never been a friend of a conservatives.
Many of my personal opinions may be dubbed as lock-in-step with modern liberals. For instance, I agree that there should be a welfare program. However, I feel that welfare is a necessary evil in order to compensate for an imbalance of wealth in the country created by the government's favorability of corporations or even small-business over individual entrepreneurships. Early America was faced with a decision. Should we become a manufacturing country that produced luxuries for the wealthy? If so, the poor would simply be individuals who were held hostage to the rich's desires. Or should we become a country that only created agricultural produce for one's subsistence? If so, the country would find it hardpressed to progress in knowledge and social condition. Thus, capitalism for profit was needed, but the Democratic-Republicans (Jeffersonians, which included James Madison) did not want an imbalance of wealth. Big corporations should be frowned upon and individual entrepreneurs encouraged. One should not be put in position where they have to work for another person (hence small business is not an ideal condition). This is not self-reliance, which is another misunderstanding by conservatives.
Thus, even though I do agree with present-day liberal positions, it is only because of present-day political circumstances. Our goal should be chipping away of the need of welfare programs, not the program itself. Conservatives are correct that many people during the founding period would not like the liberal ideology. However, they disregard the fact that much of the liberal ideology is rooted in a distrust of big business and securing civil liberties that many early Americans embraced. Conservatives only mention half the story to push its agenda onto the political landscape. If one's ideology must be rooted in lies, then the ideology must not be worth accepting.
