Why the American political spectrum differs from that overseas

The difference between left and right, and between liberal and conservative, is confusing for a lot of students, as well as many other people. It should be. The terms have been anything but consistent over the course of American history. In the past I've often heard 'liberals' talking about their Democratic Party as the party of liberty and the American dream, and without a hint of irony. I laughed and pointed out their blatant collectivism. But after reading more about American history for myself, and several historians' opinions on the matter, I've now come to a different understanding of the political spectrum in America.

Here's a spoiler: Obama is conservative.



So here's the rub on the true state of American politics. It's really about Jeffersonian vs Hamiltonian, not left or right, which according to Hayek are both essentially the same in the end. Up until about the beginning of the 20th century the Democratic Republicans, and then later the Democrats, were the party of Jefferson. The opposition, in the form of mercantilist "conservative" Hamiltonians, was first the Federalists, then the Whigs, and finally the Republicans.

The big problem is that since Woodrow Wilson the Democrats are very similar to mercantilist republicans, only they want to redistribute wealth differently than the republicans.

The confusion results because the Democrats took to calling their new ideology liberalism when it is not and was not. Liberalism is what it was before Wilson, in the 19th century.
Further confusion results from aberrations in the Republican party as true liberals-in-the-American-tradition-of-small-government attempt to use the party that at least hasn't FDR in it as a vehicle of opposition against the ideology of both the Republicans and Democrats, who are really both conservative.
These people include senator Taft, and presidential candidate Barry Goldwater. They are more correctly called liberals, or if you prefer, classical liberals. This is even more confusing because they often called themselves conservatives.

Republicans pay penance to the true American liberal Jeffersonian tradition in order to attract those who oppose both the Democrats' agenda and, unknowingly, would oppose Republicans' true agenda as well.
Unfortunately for Americans there is no real opposition party representing the Jeffersonian ideology. It was high jacked by the statists a century ago. Until there is such a party, the cause of liberty has little hope.

There are those who believe that the most realistic way to create this party is to co-opt the Republican party, which is lost and directionless at the moment. This seems to have real promise behind it as it avoids all of the obstacles to third parties put in to place by the dominant two.
The most organized source of momentum is currently, for better or worse, in the hands of Ron Paul's Campaign for Liberty, which remains independent from the Republican Party but intent on using it as a means to Jeffersonian ends.

So what does one call oneself if he believes in small government? Perhaps liberal, but one in disagreement with all other 'liberals.' Perhaps it's safest to simply stick to Jeffersonian.


Sources:

http://thomasmullen.blogspot.com/2010/02/conservatism-is-not-what-we-need.html

http://mises.org/daily/3859

"The Revolution Was" by Garet Garrett. This can be read here:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/garrett1.html

Among others.