Differences Between the Left and Conservatives

Introduction.

The line between left and right shifts with the political climate. This fluidity can make it challenging to pin down fixed positions. Despite these changes, ideal liberals and conservatives remain firm in their core values. These values guide their support or rejection of politicians, parties, or laws. People are fallible, and this fallibility is compounded by tribalism within our communities and political parties. The ever-changing landscape of information also contributes to inconsistencies in our positions. Rather than focus on specific presidential candidates or geopolitical conflicts, I prefer to explore values and beliefs. This approach helps us avoid tribal decision-making and instead align our actions with enduring principles.

The left and right may occupy opposite ends of a spectrum, but at their extremes, they become one and the same. Rather than viewing the radical left and extreme right as polar opposites on a straight line, it’s more accurate to imagine them on a circular continuum, where their radical ideologies eventually meet as the circle’s circumference loops around. A striking historical event following the invasion and partition of Poland by Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union was the joint military parade in Brest-Litovsk on September 22, 1939. Despite their ideological opposition—Nazi Germany under Adolf Hitler (extreme-right) and the USSR under Joseph Stalin (radical-left)—the two regimes coordinated their conquests. To mark their success, German and Soviet forces staged a symbolic parade featuring swastikas and red stars side by side.

What I’m getting at is this: left and right ideologies can oppose each other in theory yet converge in systematic practices when implemented. Mao (far-left), Stalin (far-left), Mussolini (far-right), and Hitler (far-right) all established regimes centered on state-controlled media, industry, and military conquests, directed by a supreme leader who wielded absolute authority to enforce ideological expansion. Despite their polar ideological labels—communism vs. fascism—their systems shared core authoritarian traits.

Liberals and conservatives might seem worlds apart, but they’re actually closer to the political center than their extreme left and right counter parts. It’s easy to see this when radical leftists call liberals “right-wing” or far-right groups label conservatives “leftists.”  In reality, liberals and conservatives share more common ground than they do with marxists and fascists. If there’s one key distinction, though, it’s that liberals often vote for left-leaning or far-left politicians because their utopian doctrines align with liberal desires to help the disenfranchised. But here’s the tragic irony: liberals often become casualties when far-left groups take power. History shows this pattern—like in the French Revolution, where moderate reformers were purged by radicals, or the Russian Communist Revolution, where even left-leaning critics were sidelined or executed once the Marxists consolidated power.

All of this leads me to explain the core differences between left-wing and conservative views—the primary opponents in the culture war within modern democratic nations. While specific conservative positions can sometimes be supported by liberals or even far-right groups, this doesn’t mean conservatism itself is blending into those ideologies. Shared policies on certain issues—such as national security or fiscal restraint—represent tactical overlaps, not evidence of ideological convergence. Ultimately, what I will address is the core moral beliefs that define these perspectives, rather than any particular party or dogma.

What is the Greatest Value in Society?

For the left, the greatest societal value is equity—equality of outcome, where differences in merit or effort are overridden to ensure uniform results. For conservatives, the highest ideal is liberty—freedom from excessive regulation, allowing individuals to succeed or fail based on their choices. These values clash at a crossroads: liberty often undermines equity since free people achieve unequal outcomes, while equity restricts liberty since enforcing equal outcomes requires controlling individual behavior.

This isn’t about equality before God or the law. Equity, as defined here, demands equal results regardless of merit. Liberty, by contrast, thrives when society limits authoritarian power rather than micromanaging lives.

History illustrates this tension. The French Revolution rallied behind “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity” but descended into the chaos of the guillotine when radical demands for equity overrode individual liberty. Meanwhile, the American Revolution’s focus on “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness” prioritized freedom, which—despite contradictions like slavery—eventually fostered an economic powerhouse and expanded civil rights.

Free Speech.

For the left, free speech often excludes hate speech. This creates a paradox: speech is “free” only if it aligns with approved ideologies. As the left gains cultural influence, the definition of “hate speech” expands. Even viewpoints that merely challenge progressive stances can fall under this label.

This tension deepens when leftist movements justify violence to combat oppression. Leftest groups like Antifa and the Weather Underground have used violence as a tool. This creates an ironic contrast: they champion free speech ideals while embracing tactics that suppress opposing voices.

For conservatives, free speech is absolute—unless it explicitly incites physical violence. This approach allows extreme viewpoints from all ideologies. But it prioritizes open discourse. The belief is that truth prevails when ideas are freely debated, even if they offend.

While this framework permits extreme rhetoric, it also protects marginalized voices. It resists the slippery slope of censorship seen in modern toleration states like Russia, China, and North Korea.

Human Nature.

For the left, human nature is seen as fundamentally good. Its corruption stems from external forces—society, institutions, or systemic issues. When individuals commit crimes, the blame falls on factors like racism, poverty, inadequate parenting, or access to weapons. The person is viewed less as a culprit and more as a product of their environment.

For conservatives, human nature isn’t inherently good or evil. It’s a spectrum of both, shaped by personal choice. When a crime occurs, the individual bears responsibility. Conservatives argue that people “know better” or consciously choose wrongdoing, regardless of external pressures.

Does the Heart Determine What is Right?

For the left, morality flows from emotional intuition—the belief that the heart’s compass reliably points toward justice. If human nature is fundamentally good, then feelings like empathy or outrage inherently reflect ethical truth. Reality becomes secondary; what matters is how you perceive and respond to it. This prioritizes lived experience or trusting your heart over rigid systems, framing morality as a matter of aligning actions with inner conviction.

For conservatives, the heart is flawed and unreliable—a product of human imperfection. Trust is placed instead in external guides: divine authority, time-tested traditions, or reasoned analysis. Morality requires a code like religious ethics or constitutional principles to navigate the world’s complexities. Reason is seen as a tool to temper emotional impulses, ensuring decisions align with objective truths rather than subjective feelings.

Source of Human Rights.

For the left, the source of human rights derive from human authority—governments, institutions, or collective societal agreements. Rights are seen as constructs shaped by evolving social values, subject to revision or expansion by state action.

For conservatives—and classical liberals, as evidenced in historical rhetoric—the rights of man are ordained by the divine.

This principle is enshrined in foundational texts like the Declaration of Independence:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…”

John F. Kennedy echoed this belief during the Cold War, framing universal rights as transcendent truths in his 1961 inaugural address:

“And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe—the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God.” - JFK

This foundational belief underpinned JFK’s Cold War rhetoric, where liberals invoked divine rights to counter Soviet atheism and materialism.

The Economic Goal of a Society.

For the left, the economic goal of society is equity—prioritizing equal material outcomes. Their central question is: “Is everyone materially equal? If not, how do we close the gap?” The answer has historically been redistribution: taking from those with more and giving to those with less, a principle straight out of the Marxist playbook:

“From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” — Karl Marx, Critique of the Gotha Programme (1875)

Yet implementing this poses a dilemma. Redistribution often requires coercive measures—taxation, expropriation, or regulation—to enforce compliance. It all boils down to using state authority and, if left unchecked, resorting to bloodshed to override individual autonomy.

For conservatives, the goal is prosperity—focused on growth and opportunity. Their guiding  question is: “Is everyone prosperous?” If not, how do we grow the economic pie?”

The answer lies in wealth creation through systems like capitalism, which incentivize innovation and productivity. This approach relies on voluntary exchange and market freedom, accepting inequality as a byproduct of growth. When economies expand, even those at the bottom rise. Consider how capitalism lifted billions from poverty in nations like China, India, and Brazil after they embraced free markets.

Conservatives and classical liberals argue that when individuals are free to innovate and create wealth through productive efforts—benefiting others in the process—society as a whole thrives. This belief is underpinned by Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” (The Wealth of Nations), which posits that individual ambition drives collective prosperity.

The Primary Role of Government.

For the left, the primary role of government is to expand and protect equality. To achieve this, the state must grow in scope, intervening across every societal domain to ensure equal outcomes. In extreme cases, this has led to radical measures—like the Soviet Union’s 1920s collectivization policies, which replaced personal kitchens with communal cafeterias to enforce uniformity in daily life. Similarly, during Mao’s Cultural Revolution, equality was enforced by erasing individuality and gender distinctions. Men and women wore identical utilitarian clothing—like the iconic Mao suits—to purge “bourgeois” influences. Women were encouraged through social pressures to cut their hair short, makeup was explicitly prohibited, and they adopted masculine appearances, rejecting femininity as a capitalist relic. Maoist ideology framed traditional gender roles as decadent, prioritizing revolutionary uniformity over personal identity.

For conservatives, the primary role of government is to safeguard liberty. This requires limiting state power and focusing on regulating illegal or unsafe activities.

The contrast between equity and liberty is stark:

During the French Revolution, the pursuit of equality led to authoritarian excesses like the Reign of Terror and widespread use of the guillotine.

In contrast, the American Revolution’s focus on liberty resulted in a framework for self-governance that produced one of the freest nations in history. Ironically, France—home to revolutionary extremes—later gifted America the Statue of Liberty, symbolizing ideals of freedom and self-determination that defined the U.S. experiment.

The Size of Government.

For the left, a larger government is seen as essential to ensuring collective welfare. The belief is that people cannot reliably address systemic inequalities or meet basic needs on their own, so the state must expand to provide healthcare, education, and social safety nets. In this view, “big government” is a moral imperative—a mechanism to protect the vulnerable and guarantee equity.

For conservatives, the ideal government is limited but functional, prioritizing individual liberty and civic responsibility. This does not mean anarchy; conservatives support maintaining a strong military, law enforcement, and institutions that uphold order. Crucially, they also emphasize cultivating an educated citizenry through robust education in STEM fields (science, technology, engineering, mathematics) alongside theology and philosophy. Such institutions aim to nurture not only technical competence but also moral reasoning and civic virtue, fostering citizens capable of self-governance.

As Dennis Prager argues, “The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen”—a principle underscoring the conservative view that excessive state control erodes individual responsibility, self-reliance, and the moral-intellectual foundation necessary for a thriving society.

Who Takes Care of You, Your Family, and Your Fellow Citizens?

For the left, the entity that takes care of you, your family, and your fellow citizens is the state. This philosophy expands government involvement in daily life, fostering dependency through welfare systems that perpetuate financial reliance across generations—often at the cost of personal freedom.

In extreme cases, the state seeks to control thought itself, as seen in Communist Czechoslovakia (1948–1989), where citizens were forced to publicly confess ideological “crimes,” or Mao’s China’s “Thought Reform” campaigns, which have evolved into modern ideological controls in China today.

The conservative’s position is that I, the individual, takes care of me, my family, and my community. Historically, self-reliant citizens formed the backbone of democracies, empowering elected representatives rather than unelected elites or monarchies.

A capable middle class, able to provide and defend itself, became the foundation of political power through voting. Yet today, even in democracies, demands for state assistance drown out the fading rustle of self-reliance. As Dennis Prager observed: “Most people do not yearn to be free. Most people yearn to be taken care of.”

The Primary Authority in a Child’s Life?

For the left, the state is positioned as the primary authority in a child’s life. A modern example is California’s SAFETY Act (Assembly Bill 1955), which prohibits schools from requiring staff to disclose a student’s gender identity or sexual orientation to parents without the student’s consent. Proponents argue that state intervention safeguards vulnerable youth, particularly LGBTQ+ students, from unsafe home environments.

However, critics ask: “Who protects children from ideological agendas?” Recent congressional hearings have featured testimonies warning of potential coercion in gender transitions. Witnesses highlighted concerns about authority figures—teachers, counselors, or medical professionals—influencing minors toward life-altering procedures. Critics argue that policies like the SAFETY Act, while framed as protective, may inadvertently isolate children from parental guidance and enable institutional overreach in shaping identity.

Conservatives assert that parental authority is sacrosanct, rooted in traditions like the biblical commandment to “Honor your father and mother so you may live long on the land that I will give you.”—the only commandment with a promised reward. From this perspective, societal stability hinges on parental autonomy, as undermining it risks cultural collapse.

Historical examples illustrate this tension: Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union dismantled parental roles through state-driven indoctrination (e.g., kidnapping children for ideological “Germanization” or imprisoning families labeled “enemies of the state”). These regimes, though ideologically opposed, both prioritized state control over family bonds, leading to societal fragmentation.

The Ideal Family.

For the left, the ideal family is any group of individuals prioritizing love and inclusivity. Marriage is not a prerequisite, partnerships may extend beyond two individuals, and the focus is on creating supportive environments for members of the family.

Conservatives uphold the nuclear family—a man and a woman raising children together in a sacred matrimony is society’s foundational ideal. While acknowledging the legal recognition of same-sex unions, they argue that heterosexual marriage remains a vital aspirational model for sustaining social stability and human flourishing.

How are Human Beings Divided?

For the left, humanity is divided by race, gender, class, and the dynamics of marginalized versus privileged groups. These divisions are framed as systemic power imbalances that shape societal outcomes.

Conservatives view the human condition through a moral lens, emphasizing the distinction between right and wrong, good and evil. Conservatives acknowledge race but reject its use as a moral metric. They believe biological differences between genders exist, but these distinctions are secondary to the ethical choices that define one’s integrity. For them, moral character—not identity—determines an individual’s worth.

As Victor E. Frankl observed, “There are only two races: the race of the decent man and the race of the indecent man.”

How to Make a Good Society.

For the left, creating a “good society” requires abolishing inequalities. However, the endpoint of this pursuit is never clearly defined. With each milestone achieved—women’s suffrage, dismantling Jim Crow laws, legalizing gay marriage—the focus shifts to increasingly granular disparities. Critics argue this risks prioritizing abstract equity over individual rights, such as women opposed to competing against biological males in sports or students denied university admission due to race-based quotas that prioritize demographic representation over merit.

For conservatives, a “good society” hinges on cultivating moral character in citizens. This involves teaching philosophy, ethics, and values rooted in shared traditions—particularly those of Christianity, which many conservatives view as foundational to a cohesive ethos. By emphasizing personal responsibility and communal faith, they aim to foster individuals who contribute to societal stability rather than relying on state-driven solutions.

Sex/Gender.

For the left, sex and gender are social constructs—neither gendered interests, societal roles, nor biological sex are considered objective truths. This perspective rejects the notion of "sex assigned at birth," arguing instead that such categories are artificial frameworks imposed by society.

For conservatives, biological sex is a fixed reality: male and female. While they acknowledge individuals may feel they belong to the opposite gender, conservatives maintain that self-perception does not override biological fact. Gender identity, in their view, cannot redefine the material boundaries of sex.

The Most Important Trait to Cultivate in a Child.

In individualistic, left-leaning societies, the most important trait to cultivate in a child is self-esteem. Rooted in the belief that people are inherently good and require minimal external control, this approach emphasizes allowing a child’s nature to unfold freely. Supporters argue that nurturing self-esteem fosters confidence and creativity, enabling children to thrive without excessive societal constraints. This philosophy is reflected in practices like awarding participation trophies in competitive sports—symbolizing the value of effort over outcomes and affirming every child’s inherent worth.

The conservative perspective prioritizes self-control as the cornerstone of child development. Self-esteem is seen as a byproduct of disciplined behavior and responsibility. Conservatives often emphasize that mastery over impulses—whether through structured routines, accountability, or delayed gratification—builds resilience and moral character. For example, adhering to rules in sports or chores at home is viewed not as stifling, but as cultivating the self-discipline necessary for long-term success and societal contribution.

Good and Evil.

For the left, good and evil are relative concepts rather than universal absolutes. Rooted in moral relativism, this stance rejects fixed moral standards, arguing that ethical judgments depend on cultural, societal, or individual contexts. As a result, practices deemed criminal in Western societies are often analyzed through a nonjudgmental lens, with emphasis on understanding their cultural significance. Similarly, actions like stealing might be reframed as morally justifiable under specific circumstances—such as poverty—where systemic inequality is seen as the root cause of criminal behavior.

Conservatives, by contrast, view good and evil as objective and universal. Grounded in moral absolutism, they assert that ethical truths transcend cultural boundaries and are often codified in religious texts like the Torah, Bible, or Koran. This frames human experience as a perpetual struggle between good vs evil. Actions deemed evil—such as theft or violence—are seen as inherent violations of universal principles, warranting accountability regardless of cultural context. For conservatives, justice is non-negotiable, even when applied across cultural divides.

View of America.

For the left, the United States is viewed as a profoundly morally flawed society, shaped by systemic inequities since its founding. Critics argue that America’s historical contradictions—such as enshrining liberty while permitting slavery and denying women’s suffrage—reveal deep-rooted injustices. These contradictions are not dismissed as anomalies but framed as evidence of a society built on exclusion and exploitation.

Modern leftist critiques often emphasize imperialism, pointing to interventions in Latin America and the Middle East as extensions of this legacy. Movements during the George Floyd protests and COVID-era activism have had calls for a revolutionary reset. For many on the left, America’s global influence is not a net gain but a perpetuation of harm requiring transformative change.

For conservatives, America remains one of history’s greatest forces for liberty, despite its imperfections. They argue that the United States is composed of humans, therefore it will be flawed because humans are flawed. They acknowledge a history of slavery and segregation but argue these reflect universal human failings, not unique moral bankruptcy. The nation’s ability to self-correct—through constitutional amendments, civil rights movements, and democratic processes—is cited as proof of its enduring resilience.

This view positions America as a global role model, inspiring movements for freedom worldwide. During the 2019 Hong Kong protests against Chinese authoritarianism, demonstrators waved U.S. flags as symbols of liberty, illustrating how American ideals transcend borders.

Conservatives argue that U.S. leadership, though imperfect, has advanced global stability and individual rights more than any alternative system.

Closing.

These observations on leftest and conservative philosophies are not original. Much of the framework derives from Dennis Prager’s analysis, particularly his insights into ideological divides. My aim is to expand on these ideas by weaving in historical examples and clarifying that left and right are not synonymous with political parties or rigid ideologies. They represent philosophical orientations that transcend tribal allegiances.

Political decisions—whether supporting a bill, candidate, or party—should stem from evaluating individual issues through a values-based lens, not tribal loyalty. This approach rejects the oversimplified "us vs. them" mindset that dominates modern discourse.

A key focus is countering the misconception that conservatism aligns with extremist groups like the Ku Klux Klan or Nazi Party. Historically, conservatives often stood against such movements. Winston Churchill’s defiance of Hitler, Abraham Lincoln’s emancipation of enslaved people, and the conservative pushback against totalitarian regimes demonstrate this. These examples underscore that conservatism, rooted in preserving liberty and moral order, has historically opposed ideologies that dehumanize or divide.

By highlighting conservative achievements—economic stability, defense of free speech, or institutional reforms—we challenge the modern tendency to conflate conservatism with far-right extremism. The goal is not to dismiss valid critiques of any ideology but to foster nuance: understanding that shared policies (e.g., national security) don’t equate to shared moral foundations.