A friend of mine is, apparently, a liberal. She's laughing as she reads this, I'll bet, because this fact is, to her, a wonderful, delightful, wise, and glorious thing. But to me it makes no sense. That's because some of the central tenets of what is generally called liberalism today violate what seems to me like common sense, as well as (some of them) violating the clear and simple teaching of scripture. I'm sure she would giddily dig up tenets of what is generally called "conservatism" today and highlight how they violate her definition of "common sense" as well as scriptural teachings.

The difference between her and me is, apparently, I would only reluctantly use the word "conservative" of myself in a political sense because the widely used dichotomous alternative is to be called a liberal, which I can stomach even less, because I just don't "get" how liberalism makes any sense.

I don't mind so much being called conservative in a religious sense (though still with some qualifiers, depending on how the listener defines the term). I had assumed at one point that my friend, as well, believed in the basic truth of the Bible (which is at the core of my definition of conservative). But she so vehemently denies the label "conservative" that either (1) she's only talking about politics, or (2) she doesn't agree with my definition, religiously, or (3) she really is religiously liberal (i.e., believes we have the freedom to interpret scripture in whatever way seems wise to us at the moment).

I would like to go through a list of things that are generally included in the "liberal" package of definitions that I don't get. I'll get one out here, and hopefully I'll proceed through the list in the future (though we know my follow-through on plans involving my website has a horrible track record).

Liberals believe that the federal government can do just about everything better than any other group.
You want your kids to get an education? Let the government take care of it? Health care? The government. Parenting? Let the government decide how best it should be done. Religion? The government would (presumably, under liberal tenets) be happiest if you just forgot about that archaic religion stuff. Thus, as the NY Times reported last week, religion shouldn't be allowed the privilege of being tax-exempt (free exercise of religion be hanged).

I guess the appeal of doing things through the federal government is that things get done in some universal, standardized, top-down manner. Local biases and weaknesses are overcome, by this logic, by the best of the best being employed by the government to come up with the best ways to do things, and then the benefit of that wisdom is passed along to the rest of the country, who otherwise wouldn't have the opportunity to receive such educated, wise advice.

If that's the way it played out, I'm not sure I would have so much problem with it. But power corrupts. Bureaucracy muddles. And the federal government is one of the largest examples in the world of both. Muddle-headed corruption minimizes the amount of good that federal dictates might otherwise have. In addition, we're all at the mercy of Washington's definition of "wisdom." In our society, a large number (a majority?) of intellectuals and "experts" are ambivalent, at best, and antagonistic at worst towards religion. Being, as I am, an intellectual-leaning religious person, I don't much appreciate having policies and principles foisted on me from on high from people whose foundational assumptions about the nature of reality are violently divergent from the best things I know.

In short, the federal government does very little with excellence. Why give them more power and responsibility?