Difference between conservatives, liberals and libertarians...?

I had some thoughts after hearing an interview with Allen West recently on the push for at least part of his and others sharing his political views agendas to be passed slowly but surely. It spurs the argument against Incrementalism, so I'll paste my thoughts here and hopefully start a discussion.

 

People often assume if a person is not liberal, they are conservative - and for a good reason. Like in many other aspects of life (say someone is not a creationist, well surely they would be an evolutionist right?), disagreement with one position tends to place you in the position furthest apart. There may be cases however, where the position you 'fall' into still upholds values that you strongly refute. This is where my argument lies, a part of conservative philosophy that could turn off those who are even so opposed to liberal philosophy is incrementalism.

 

You could call incrementalism gradualism and still come away with the same meaning: a policy where gradual social and economical changes bring about the preferred outcome. Think about people you know or even in your own life, specifically those who had problems with addiction. A few methods come to mind that people in an intervention might discuss. They might have been told "baby steps..." "one step at a time..." or my favorite "please tie your shoelaces before going down the st-" you get the point. This method would be known as incrementalism - a deceivingly harmless approach but one that is completely dependent upon time.

 

This -ism is how conservative thinkers would approach fixing the current socioeconomic problems that we so desperately need to alleviate. The key word here is "desperately" - urgency - which supports the notion of incrementalism's dependency on time.

 

What if your friend (or you) - the addict - was in the intervention after already being in a horrible state of mind, not just beginning to go downhill but nearing terminal velocity itself? Would taking baby steps really meet the sense of urgency required to prevent them from going beyond the point of repair? You could argue against that. So, what then could the intervention suggest?

 

"Cold turkey."

 

Interestingly enough, quitting something cold turkey might just suffice. After all, I don't think the addict needs any more examples of what might happen if he or she pursues the current path any further (which is a version of incrementalism catered toward liberal philosophers).

 

So how would all of this apply to America? Well, I bring up conservative and liberal thought here because they are the two primary driving forces in our country's decision making. The idea that policies implemented in the near future (2014 and onward) which promote slow, gradual changes (the kinds of changes you'll notice when you hear pundits say "this plan is a good start") can sufficiently allow for necessary recovery is a tad obsolete. Sure, implementing these changes say 40 years ago would have been manageable, but not in the present era. Likewise, the idea that continuing on our pattern of masking our debt while encouraging consumer spending as the savior of our economy is about as wise as covering a dirty bandage with a clean one.

 

This leaves us with a middle ground - logically speaking - where in combination of urgency, application and resource, we need to abandon the mainstream thoughts of recovery, namely incrementalism, and pursue one of a draconian nature.