Upon reflection, it occurs to me that the problem with a leftist ideology is not the ends to which it aspires, but the means by which it tries to reach them. Likewise, the problem with a rightist ideology is less the means than it is their logical end in the real world. I realize that these are vague and sticky terms. For the moment, I mean liberal/left in the sense of large government programs and "conservative" in the more libertarian sense of individual initiatives apart from government interference.
For example, no one would speak against the goodness of "liberal" ends: equality, medicine for the poor, a woman's personal value and freedom. The problem is how our liberal politicians attempt to achieve it: affirmative action, socialized healthcare, and abortion rights.
On the other hand, you'd be hardpressed to find someone who would say that there is anything inherently wrong with a government that protects the possessions and rights of its people, or with people serving higher authorities. The problem is that the government can easily be corrupted, and the ends to which it claims to strive can be masks for ulterior motives. While the people's obedience (the means) might be a good thing, the abuse of that obedience for self-advancement (the ends) is very bad. Also, individualism as its own end leads to a nightmare world of selfishness.
Individualism only succeeds if it is tempered with a notion that other individuals are just as valuable, and that it is worth sacrficing oneself selflessly and voluntarily for the sake of another.
Thus, the ideal ideology would then seem to be one that employs the ends of a liberal ideology with the means of a conservative ideology. This is the ideology that breeds charity. You can only make a gift of things you already own.
It would also stand to reason that the worst ideology would be one that employs leftist means to a right-wing end. This is the road to tyranny; having things taken away from you in the service of another because the other has the authority to claim it. Those who feed off the state do so for their own individual benefit.
This is perhaps why the Church is such an enduring and gratifying institution, whereas most other institutions are short-lived or miserable.
The Church, perhaps more than any other body, shows how placing tremendous value on the individual ultimately leads to social wellness. Morality creates true liberty, which itself is necessary ingredient for individual virtue, which in turn promotes the prosperity of the whole. Even the Church's "government" in the form of the hierarchy exists solely to serve individual members of the Church. Peter was given keys, not a sword. Keys are what a steward carries, and a steward is ultimately the head servant (we've read of the disasters that have occurred when Peter has forgotten this role, and we've seen what Jesus said to Peter when he wielded a sword). The pope's ends are "liberal," but his means are "conservative." He serves the people by showing them the way to a utopian society through individual moral choices, not based on compulsory government mandate and interference.
Comments