Choosing to be liberal or conservative only leads to imbalance

Liberals and conservatives continuously argue that the basis for all American democratic values is fully represented through the practice of their methodology. They rival each other through American politics in the race to power and control of congressional offices.

I am not a liberal, nor am I a conservative. I have negative opinions reflecting both sides of the argument. But in most cases I tend to favor the liberal point of view, not because it was a long-term goal I set, but because in most cases, it applied to my stance of debate.

My critique is that we must not cut down to one side.

I criticize the conservative party because its methods of spreading American values globally is more imperialistic than democratic. It forces the “liberties” and “freedoms” of America on other nations by incorporating foreign policy in developing countries that are practiced and spread out through the region by American implemented autocratic regimes and dictators.

Yet no credit should be given to the liberals either. True, they claim to stand and support the adoption of human rights and that all governments of the world should adhere to those rights with respect to every human being on this earth. In theory, we could all appeal to the ideas and values of the liberal standpoint, but unfortunately we live in a world of reality, which the majority of the time contradicts those values and methods.

When talking about society, I am not specifically regarding just American society alone. I am also making reference to the societies that have been produced as a result of American foreign policy.

A perfect example is the chaotic conflict in Iraq right now. The conservatives say the troops are there-they should be there-because they are fighting for the freedom of America and liberating the people of Iraq from more than 30 years of dictatorship. The flaw with that argument is that 71 percent of Iraqis, based on a poll, view the American coalition as “occupiers.” But the liberals’ solution is for the U.S. Army to pull out tomorrow. If we did that, then Iraq is better off just nuking itself. The situation in Iraq is not something that I favor anyway, but we have to work with the existing conditions. We have to form some sort of a solution that is beneficial to the Iraqi people.

As the liberals consistently criticize the U.S. government for waging war, viewing it as an anti humanistic act of murder and atrocity, they seem to forget the same murders and atrocities Saddam Hussein committed against his people during the last 35 years.

Another example that points out the illogical liberal propaganda is the unfortunate situation in Iran. Up until talks of a military campaign to invade Iran and dismantle the theocratic regime, the liberals took no interest or made no mention in pushing for democratic reformation in Iran, or supporting the Iranian people, and in this case supporting them against a military invasion.

It seems that unless the U.S. takes an offensive stance, only then will the liberals take the defensive position on an issue. I am not taking either side of this dispute; I am only pointing out the flaws from both points of view.

I was never in support for the Iraq war because to me it did not seem like the best solution to dethrone Saddam Hussein from power, but I have come to the realistic conclusion that it’s done and my protestation against it now would be illogical.

I have respect for the liberals because their ideas tend to reflect the full adoption of free liberties and human rights in our society, but their solutions are more hypothetical than practical and often contradict the basic liberal philosophy.

The conservatives have a more realistic approach toward the problems society faces today, which defines my respect for them, but they have redefined democracy in a fascist sense.

We all, as human beings, want to establish a peaceful society. We want to perfect this world of imperfection. But a perfect world is just idealistic. The conservatives and liberals have to meet at a point to agree that neither of them have the perfect solution for the problems that society has produced, and they must accept it as the truth.

[email protected]