Because the political right is full of an interesting bunch of characters, many in the media struggle to properly identify and categorize its different ideological camps. The right is said to be made up of mainstream, business-friendly, Tea Party, libertarian, neoconservative, religious-minded or simply extremist groups.
Every now and again, a brave writer attempts to organize this disarray. Recently, Buzzfeed’s Ben Smith gave it a try.
Smith’s proposal: Divide the conservative movement in two. Call one side the “Liberty Conservatives” and the other, “Freedom Conservatives.” The former “draws on a straight line that runs from the Declaration to modern libertarianism” and the latter “goes from emancipation to George W. Bush, with a rather inconvenient detour through Roosevelt.” The Freedom Conservatives are more likely to support the legalization of marijuana, while the Liberty Conservatives are more likely to support the intervention in Iraq.
Even thought it seems like this is a practical proposal, the categorization takes a turn for the worse. Smith begins to delve into the roots and definitions of the words “liberty” and “freedom.” One has a “Germanic root,” and the other has a “Latin one,” obviously, and he discusses their distinct connotations. This is fine and dandy, but these two words have been used interchangeably so often that they lose their unique meanings that lend to Smith’s proposal.
If these monikers stuck, havoc on the right would ensue. I can see men with furled “Don’t Tread on Me” flags getting into arguments over which Founding Father would fall into which category. Did Jefferson champion freedom over liberty, or the other way around? It makes you wonder.
Then comes the inevitable question: Which would Reagan be? He touted individual liberty, and he did like freedom. Members on the right will take sides of this all-too-important quandary and a civil war will rage.
In a more practical case, consider what category former Sen. Rick Santorum would fall into. He is predominantly known as a religious conservative, which would easily make him a Liberty Conservative. But then again, he holds dear the free market in a way that would qualify him as a Freedom Conservative. While you jostle with the Freedom versus Liberty distinction, you completely lose sight of what makes Santorum, Santorum.
Smith’s two camps are too broad and contrast too little. These terms improperly classify conservatives, and you would have to be crazy to believe that a person would identify himself or herself in Smith’s terms.
Years before Smith, Irving Kristol, the intellectual leader and godfather of the neoconservative movement, tried in vain to categorize the right. In one of his essays, Kristol separates the right into three rows: the traditional, religious and neoconservatives.
Traditional conservatives are more libertarian-leaning and anti-statist. They are more prone to being cozy with the business community because the opposite of the public sector is the private sector.
Religious conservatives are just as the name implies: They rely on a predominantly Judeo-Christian disposition. Vices, like marijuana legalization, the deterioration of “traditional” marriage and gambling are frowned upon. The state, in their view, must pass ethical and moral laws that must align with religious tradition and tenant.
Neoconservatives are disenfranchised New Dealers. These conservatives were content with bigger government but ultimately defected from the left because of Lyndon Johnson’s unrealistic Great Society initiative. They have a grandiose view of American influence and are better identified by their hawkish views on foreign policy.
As with Smith’s proposal, Kristol’s categories lack proper individuality. George W. Bush was a foreign policy hawk, which had much to do with his strong religious convictions. Nice try, and thanks for playing.
Even though this is a nice little pastime the media like to play, no writer can properly separate the right so neatly. There is no point in doing this. By reducing the right wing into redundant and ineffectual camps, you lose sight of its diverse political thought. These inaccurate views of the right actually gives the right its strength. It leads to a robust internal policy debate and a healthier political movement. Perhaps we should focus more on that instead of camp drawing.
[Michael Beato is a UF economics junior. His columns appear on Tuesdays. A version of this story ran on page 7 on 7/22/2014 under the headline "Is it possible to categorize the right?"]
