Posted under Conservatism & Political Philosophy
I stated below that I have one reservation about the article. It is this statement:
In the United States, the founders, whose classical liberalism constitutes the core of modern conservatism…
Does classical liberalism constitute the core of modern conservatism? Perhaps. But to the extent that is true, that is part of the problem. American conservatism has always embraced elements of classical liberalism, but liberalism, classical or otherwise, can not preserve a society. Conservatism preserves a society. Authentic, as opposed to modern, conservatism can not be equal to classical liberalism even though you frequently hear and read that assertion. By definition, conservatism can not be just or mostly classical liberalism or it becomes plain old liberalism.
Also, is it true that the Founders were classical liberals as Primeau asserts?
This topic really needs discussion on the right. Few question the conservatism = classical liberalism assertion. Please discuss.
Sid Cundiff on 27 Jun 2007 at 9:26 pm #
Classic Liberalism is Bentham, Locke, and Hobbes
Real Conservatism is Burke and de Maistre.
Aristotle and Aquinas are another point of view.
Get ride of thinking of politics on a left-right axis. It’s more like a Chinese checkers board or a Jackson Pollock canvas. For starters, try Mitchell’s Eight Ways to Run the Country.
Filmer on 27 Jun 2007 at 9:54 pm #
Bentham, Locke, and Hobbes are clearly problematic.
But is Burke’s slow change Whiggishness part of the problem as well? (Should I duck?)
ERIC on 27 Jun 2007 at 10:37 pm #
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism#.22Classical_liberalism.22_and_libertarianism
Harold Crews on 27 Jun 2007 at 10:43 pm #
Sid, I’m not sure that Bentham could be considered a part of classical liberalism. Surely Locke would be. I also have doubts about Hobbs. Montesquiou, Adam Smith, probably Hume (at least in part) could be counted among classical liberals. At some point it is difficult to discern between classical liberal and conservative. There would certainly many areas of overlap.
Looking forward to getting some pig Friday night.
Weaver on 27 Jun 2007 at 10:51 pm #
I tend to grade along a line ranging from individualist/globalist to traditionalist/kinist, with myself on the far right.
Every policy should be done in the best interest of the nation, within the confines of its religion. (Religion comes first, but Christianity tells us to be right wing by taking care of our own.) If a laissez-faire policy is best for the survival and well being of the nation, then it is right wing, but some of the people who push for the laissez-faire policy might happen to be left wing.
So motive is perhaps the most important test. If a person believes his people will be best preserved and happiest by allowing in mass immigration, then he is an exceptionally stupid right winger.
Greens are an interesting group. They’re somewhat right wing because they seem to want a nationless but decentralised world that preserves nature. I’d put them at left center, with stubborn roots in the left and leanings to the right. If they could just cross the line between preserving nature and enter into preserving their nation, they’d be right wing.
Chinese neoconservatives are another interesting group.
Harold Crews on 27 Jun 2007 at 11:04 pm #
Wiki definition of classical liberalism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism
Paleolibertarianism is probably what would be considered the present heir of classical liberalism. Paleolibertarianism is often considered to be as libertine as other branches of libertarianism. But I think that is to misread it. Paleolibertarianism has very little to say outside of the state. It has no or little concern about non-state actors employing non-market factors in society. Its primary aim is to prevent or oppose the state from becoming a revolutionary force in society through its monopolistic use of force.
One question that I have is that if conservatism allows or even requires the use of state power to maintain some social institutions, at what point does that society cease to be organic?
I have always considered myself a conservative of the paleo variety, but I do have considerable sympathy for paleolibertarianism.
ERIC on 27 Jun 2007 at 11:04 pm #
There is basically 4 types of political catagories:
Liberalism-Big government intervention in economic issues, no government intervention in social/cultural issues.
Libertarianism-No government intervention in either economics or social/cultural issues.
Coservativism- No government intervention in economic issues, Big government intervention in social/cultural issues.
Authoritarianism (also known as populism)-Big government intervention in both economic and social/cultural issues.
Classical Liberalism is the same as Libertarianism.
And Libertarianism is not what the Buchanan brigade was all about, that’s why I don’t understand why Pat Buchanan’s website run by Linda is supporting Ron Paul over Tancredo and Hunter.
The Buchanan brigade is/was a Populist leaning Conservativism. Very socially/culturally conservative and for the most part, economically conservative, but had some intervention in economic issues when big business got out of line. And by the way, this paragraph describes my political philosophy.
And as far as war is concerned, both Conservatives and Authoritarians have the same view as me on war, and it is either fight to win/fight full force or leave it alone, but don’t get entagled in a politically correct never ending war.
Liberals and Libertarians both believe in the “just war” philosophy that basically leads to never going to war (even when it is needed) or getting involved in a politically correct never ending war.
Here is a link (scroll down towards the bottom) that explains not only the 4 types of philosophies I listed, but also explains a few types of philosophies within the 4 philosophies.
For the record, I don’t care for their name for social conservatives, they call it (moderate) social conservative.
http://www.quiz2d.com/
Weaver on 27 Jun 2007 at 11:07 pm #
State power is needed to encourage morality so that citizens voluntarily do what is right and do not fall into corruption. State power is needed for defense of course, and to keep out mass migrations. Included in my word ‘defense’ are many things including preserving a level of autarky and the industrial capability needed to defend the nation in a time of war. Research into certain fields might best be run by the state.
Also the environment and important heritage sites must be preserved if the corrupt pursuit of profit has led people to pursue personal gain over what is best for the long term interests of the nation.
State power is needed to ensure the “free market” does not develop monopolies or gangster run “free market” leviathans.
I speak only for myself of course, but such is my view.
It’s important I think to not react too strongly to the current anti-American government by swinging along the pendulum to near anarchism which really leads back to an authoritarian regime anyway. A balance is needed. There are times when state power is needed, so it is imperative that those in charge are the most virtuous, capable, and wise.
ERIC on 27 Jun 2007 at 11:18 pm #
Weaver
I agree with you, I think we have a similar political philosophy, and I consider myself a populist leaning conservative, which is what Pat Buchanan is.
Weaver on 27 Jun 2007 at 11:35 pm #
Pat Buchanan is excellent. It’s too bad he isn’t running again for president.
Back more to what Filmer wanted: America’s political heritage shouldn’t be as important as its cultural heritage. If its government does not act in the nation’s best interests, then it is unjust, and if there is no American culture, then there is no American nation, only an empire.
It’s important to not tear down a fence until one knows why it was put up, but one should tear it down, or tear it down slowly and with great caution, if it in it is the way. The fences were put up to serve the nation.
America had a proud traditionalist political heritage before the civil war, aside from slavery which was unjust, though to be sure.
ERIC on 27 Jun 2007 at 11:42 pm #
Factions within the republican party from wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factions_in_the_Republican_Party_%28United_States%29
Notice Libertarian being in the moderate/liberal part of the party.
Far-right from wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far_right#Parties_labeled_as_.22Far_Right.22_or_.22Extreme_Right.22
A few quotes from this link:
“In the modern world, the term far right is applied to those who support authoritarian policies in support of policies which are considered “right” rather than “left”. ”
“The term “far right” also embraces extreme nationalism, and far-right groups will often evoke a “pure” ideal of the nation, often defined on racial or “blood” grounds. They may advocate the expansion or restructuring of existing state borders to achieve this ideal nation, often to the point of embracing expansionary war and imperialism.”
“The term “far right” has been used for certain populist or authoritarian regimes.”
“While the term is occasionally applied to the supporters of extreme laissez-faire capitalism such as some libertarians, calling the libertarians “far right” or even “right” is a matter of controversy. The libertarians consider themselves as the heirs of the classical liberals, the main enemies of the first far-right.”
“Radical right-wing populism is a far right ideology which accepts representative democracy, but criticizes political “elites” and appeals to ethno-nationalism.”
ERIC on 27 Jun 2007 at 11:56 pm #
Right-wing politics from wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_politics
A quote:
“In politics, right-wing, the political right, and the right are terms used in the spectrum of Left-Right Politics, and much like the opposite appellation of Left-wing, it has a broad variety of definitions: the same name can, in politics, sometimes mean different things. However, it is generally used to refer to the segments of the political spectrum often associated with any of several strains of conservatism, American conservatism, monarchism, fascism[1], right-libertarianism, anarcho-capitalism, paleoliberalism, neoliberalism, reactionism, traditionalism, royalism, some forms of populism, the Religious Right, nationalism, militarism, producerism, nativism, realism or simply the opposite of left-wing politics.”
Weaver on 28 Jun 2007 at 12:32 am #
Eric,
That definition is summed up with “or simply the opposite of left-wing politics.†The definition I gave above of left wing was essentially “or simply the opposite of my concept of right wing.”
Ron Lewenberg on 28 Jun 2007 at 3:08 am #
In answering the question, does conservatism equal classical liberalism, one must define the terms. What is classical liberalism and what is conservatism?
Classical liberalism is not one ideology, but two. There is a contractual tradition built upon the works of Hobbes and Locke which our founders drew, which held that government exists to protect the liberties of citizens, because such liberties do not exist long without government.
There is also the positivist or Rousseau-derived view that government should maximize the liberty of citizens, a liberty which heretofore had been destroyed by society. This led to the Reign of Terror in France. This is a radical position.
(I am simplifying. For instance Jefferson, ever the effete and guilty aristocrat slave-driver switched positions. At won point he was pro-Jacobin, holding parties gaily parading cakes adorned with guillotines!)
Classical Conservatism in the American sense of the term, building from the experience of Greece, Rome, and the English Civil War, has two other pillars: tradition religion. It recognizes that liberty does not exist alone. In fact it devolves into licence and that unconstrained government in the name of liberty is tyranny.
The Founding Fathers were devided amonth the spectrum of these three positions.
Washington, Adams, Hamilton, and at times Madison were classical conservatives. Patrick Henry and Samual Adams were classical liberals. Tom Paine was a radical liberal.
Ron Lewenberg on 28 Jun 2007 at 3:52 am #
Might I also suggest that one read the Conservatism FAQ by Jim Kalb.
http://turnabout.ath.cx:8000/?q=node/3
Filmer on 28 Jun 2007 at 1:18 pm #
Wow. Good stuff.
Sid,
Any complex phenomenon, like political beliefs, is necessarily not going to be entirely characterized in a spectrum that measures only one dimension. So of course it is correct that left and right is overly simplistic.
When looking at simple explanations of complex phenomenon, their utility depends on how fundamental or essential the dimension you are looking at is. So the question is not, does the left/right spectrum cover it all. Of course it doesn’t. It can’t. But does it look at something very elemental? If the spectrum was measuring sky blue believers and sky green believers then it wouldn’t help much. But I believe it does look at something very fundamental, and that is why it has proven useful for > 200 years.
So what does the left/right spectrum measure? Simplistically/superficially it measures resistance to change vs. advocating change. The most basic issue in France was the nature and origin of authority. I could elaborate more, but I will hold off for now. This is, in fact, a very essential distinction and remains so today even though leftist, even among self described conservatives, vastly outnumber true rightists.
So in defense of the left/right spectrum, I believe it is still useful rhetorically and descriptively.
Filmer on 28 Jun 2007 at 1:51 pm #
Ron,
“Washington, Adams, Hamilton, and at times Madison were classical conservatives. Patrick Henry and Samuel Adams were classical liberals. Tom Paine was a radical liberal.”
I think you are wrong about that. The Federalist like Washington, Adams, and Hamilton definitely had some conservative aspects – distrust of democracy, aristocratic royalism, etc. Henry and Adams in modern parlance were more populists. But they were not classic liberals because they were very devout believers. (I have one son named Patrick Henry and one son named Samuel Adams, BTW.) Both believed in an established Church. Both would fall on the right with regard to the origin of Authority that I alluded to above. The anti-Federalists were distrustful of the accumulation of authority in the center, a liberal sentiment, but they were also jealous of local authority which is particularist and conservative. The Federalist ended up trying to establish a centralized system that was the forerunner of the modern unified, indivisible state that the French would shortly establish. They were light Hobbesians.
Adams and Henry wanted decentralization and localism, which is the more “primitive” system. Look at the Revolutionaries in France. They could not tolerate the idea of an independent Alsace for example. Had Henry been in France he would have been arguing for Alsatian autonomy.
Admittedly this decentralized vs. centralized spectrum is one of the things that is not well captured by the left right spectrum, but clearly decentralization is the more “primitive” (and natural) concept.
Also the fact that we need to define the terms as you correctly point out is evidence of the corruption of the language. What is legitimately complicated to me is the distinction between conservative and reactionary. If conservatism means resisting change and then coming to terms with it and later defending the new status quo, then that is a definition that inherently benefits liberalism.
I also like Jim Kalb. He has written some very devastating critiques of liberalism. I know what he is against, but I am not sure what he is for. Is he a Ron Lewenberg style nationalist, or is he more of a paleo/traditionalist?
ERIC on 28 Jun 2007 at 2:46 pm #
Were the founding fathers classical liberals?
I believe so, for the most part, but only in the economic sense.
I think they believed in the laissez-faire type of economics for the most part but were wise to the fact that their could be coruption that occurs with extreme laissez-faire type economics.
On social/cultural issue, I believe the founding fathers were not classical liberals, classical liberals were not christians, and the founding fathers were white christians, yet the founding fathers did not want one particular denomination to be the religion of the land, but there is no doubt that the founding fathers intended this country to be a christian country but not a catholic country or baptist country ect.
To sum it up:
I believe the founding fathers intended this country to be a christian country but not a specific denomination and obviously wanted this country to be of their same kind (white), and were laissez-faire economically but only to the extent that it worked for the good of their people.
Just my opinion tho.
Today, not only do we have different religions in this country but we also have different ethnicities and we also have big businesses that have corrupted the laissez-faire economic system.
All 3 things go against what I believe the founding fathers intended.
Sid Cundiff on 28 Jun 2007 at 9:50 pm #
re: spectrum
Concepts such a left/right conservative/liberal obscure rather than clarify the scene, and give the common folk the mistaken impression that we have only two choices. Also such a binary view is only common in Anglo-Saxondom.
Yet for the sake of argument, if one demands a spectrum or axis, then let it be one which I lift from the magisterial essay “Conservative Thought†of Karl Mannheim, Essays on Sociology and Social Psychology, Paul Kecskemeti, ed. (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1953), pp. 74-164, – the nutshell of which is Section 2 “the meaning of Conservatismâ€, subsection “aâ€, “the basic intention behind conservative thoughtâ€, pp. 102-116. Consider then a spectrum between those who think of the social order as an ancient and completed building, with long-planted grounds, to be seen from every angle and detail, and those who look first at a blueprint, then raze and build from abstract scratch (p. 111) – say, on one end Charles X, the two Catos, and maybe Boseuet, and on the other end Marx & Co. and assorted eco-terrorists. The divine Burke is closer to the former end, though would argue that the building might need very careful adjustment, alteration, addition, retirement of a part to a museum, repair, temporary housing during repair, and (oooooooooooo!) RESTORATION!
De Maistre, by the way, was grossly defamed by Isaiah Berlin. Did Ernst Nolte defame Maurras, however odiously Judeophobic the latter undoubtably was?
Sid Cundiff on 28 Jun 2007 at 10:13 pm #
My friend Harold Crews is probably correct about Bentham, Hobbes, — and good eating!
Harold Crews on 28 Jun 2007 at 10:29 pm #
As conservatives we should still be aware of the weaknesses of conservatism. That primary weakness is that any society, beyond those existing at a subsistance level, has a level of complexity which none or at most very few can understand comprehensively. That society will have traditions, customs and institutions will have functions, purposes and consequences that are not fully comprehended. When a tradition, custom or institution ceases to fulfill its original purpose or even becomes counter productive than reform is necessary. Of course if the consequence of a tradition, custom or institution is minimal then there would be little harm in continuing it for nostalgia.
Let’s take for instance the late Roman Republic. The Republic had expanded through conquest. Foreign territories were added. The source of the old wealth, primarily agriculture, was displaced by militarism. Small farmers ceased to be an influential class due to long service in the wars. The urbanisation that caused by farms going fallow by long absence. The dependence upon slave labour in agriculture. Those factors that gave rise to the republic changed. But the institutions of government were not reformed to take the changes into account. Those institutions no longer were adapted to their “enviroment” therefore the result was tyranny. As much as I admire Marcus Cato, the Roman state needed reform.
Conservatism to continue to serve liberty must incorporate reform. If conservatism prohibits reform than at some point it becomes revolutionary reactionism. Think of it as the difference between development of doctrine and change of doctrine.
Filmer on 28 Jun 2007 at 10:43 pm #
Sid,
CHT likes De Maistre. Look at our masthead.
But the dichotomy that you suggest IS the left/right dichotomy, is it not? The right wanted to preserve the Ancient Regime, and the left wanted to destroy it and institute a totally new Republic based on theory and philosophy.
Harold,
Doesn’t the current sorry state of affairs call for some reactionism?
Sid Cundiff on 28 Jun 2007 at 11:32 pm #
Filmer,
i. I know you like De Maistre; I wish Berlin had.
ii. While you have a point, still there are so many dichotomies that the concept of dichotomy is no longer useful. Please tell me whether the following dudes and dudettes are “liberal” or “conservative”
1. John Zerzan
2. Arne Næss
3. Lew Rockwell
4. Hans-Hermann Hoppe
5. His Grace, Otto von Habsburg, Archduke of Austria
6. Mother Ann Lee
7. His Holiness Pope Leo XIII of Rerum Novarum fame
8. Gavrilo Princip
9. The Rev. Iain Paisley
10. Gerry Adams
11. The Bonapartists
12. The Orleanists
13. Édouard Herriot and the Radicals
14. The Distributionist and Social Credit types
15. Friedrich Nietzsche
16. Hannah Arendt
17. Thomas Jefferson
18. Theodor Hertzl
19. Ludwig Windthorst (“two people are necessary for my life: my wife for someone to love, and Windthorst for someone to hate.” — Bismarck)
20. P. T. Barnum
Harold Crews on 28 Jun 2007 at 11:56 pm #
Being reactionary isn’t always bad of course. But it is more apt to be uninformed than conservatism. Therefore the good that it might accomplish is more by chance than intent.
ERIC on 29 Jun 2007 at 12:12 am #
Call me a reactionist, especially with the garbage going on in this country like abortion, gay marriage, affirmative action, third world immigration invasion, out of control liberal activist judges.
Altho some good supreme court decisions were narrowly made this week.
Harold Crews on 29 Jun 2007 at 12:18 am #
Eric, that is all well and good. Everyone should oppose abortion, sodomite “marriage”, affirmative action, third world immigration, and liberal activist judges. But also keep in mind that many issues that long term have just as great an impact are more subtle than the matters you mention. Some of which on first glance appear wholesome and right, but only on deeper reflection do the full consequences appear.
Weaver on 29 Jun 2007 at 12:53 am #
Harold Crews Quote: Being reactionary isn’t always bad of course. But it is more apt to be uninformed than conservatism. Therefore the good that it might accomplish is more by chance than intent.
—
Only because it takes such extraordinary wisdom, virtue, and ability to return a corrupt tradition back to a more virtuous state. We need heroic leaders. Conservatives tend to either recognise their own fallibility or to recognise the good in what is that others cannot see.
E.g., if the US has developed a “tradition” of mass immigration, this tradition should be razed to the ground absolutely. If the US has developed a tradition of rule by force rather than rule by law, this too should be razed. Such traditions are revolutionary and ought to be replaced as quickly as is reasonable.
Don’t get me wrong; I fervently believe neutral traditions should be retained simply because they are traditions and provide stability and a connection to the past. Also, slow changes are best at times.
However, we’re near the point where a more reactionary radical movement is needed if the West is to be preserved. “If conservatism prohibits reform than at some point it becomes revolutionary reactionism.” To Hell with preserving American business’s reliance upon cheap labour and the expansion of the US state into NAFTA. Rome should have ceased its conquest, rid itself of slavery, and found a way to defend itself, and so too should America. Order, stability, and liberty (you mentioned later) are not the only good; they exist to serve the nation. Am I wrong?
If we are to reject nationalism and religion for order, stability, and liberty, then it seems the Fukuyama vision of a one world state is to be embraced. However, I think he is correct about the danger of human nature being changed via biotech, but that complicates this discussion.
—
Ron,
that site has developed well. I saw it before much of that had been added. It’s incredible now. We need more sites like that up on the internet with increasing complexity. The understanding of how to produce text books has blossomed, and we of the West should take advantage of it. We need to train ourselves, others, and the next generation of Westerners.
Filmer on 29 Jun 2007 at 3:09 am #
Sid,
The only ones I have thought that much about are Rockwell, Hoppe, Gerry Adams and the Distributionists. But you make my point. I have already conceded that a one-dimensional spectrum can not possibly capture all aspects of a complex phenomenon. No duh. But I stand by my assertion that it is an unusually useful distinction. That is why it has been around for 200+ years.
I am not sure I understand your objection. What is the harm? It simplifies things too much for the masses? The masses are interested in Paris Hilton, and many vote based on sound bites. They are going to follow our complex philosophical debate?
One reason I think it is useful is because it clearly demonstrates that most modern conservatives are historical liberals. This is an important point that needs to be driven home. Maybe it doesn’t spark the needed Counter-Revolution (I agree with Weaver. I like that term.), but it is a useful rhetorical bludgeon for those who can follow the debate. It is also particularly fun to use because honest people have to admit you are right. Then they just call you a reactionary.
My hunch is that it goes against something in particular that you are advocating?
Filmer on 29 Jun 2007 at 3:11 am #
Oops… add Thomas Jefferson to those I have though about.
Harold Crews on 29 Jun 2007 at 1:01 pm #
Weaver, no I don’t think you are wrong, particularly in regards to immigration and the other issues mentioned. But then the only opposition to those issues isn’t reactionary. At this point in time when society is in all but a state of flux, being reactionary is better than cutting yourself adrift. I was speaking more generally rather than specifically of today.
Sid Cundiff on 29 Jun 2007 at 1:34 pm #
Re: reactionary — and in support of Harold: a reactionary is someone who thinks that if the way we’re doing it today is bad, let’s do it the way we did it yesterday — which was also bad. Thus those who think the world began in that supposed pristine and silvan Golden Age of the 1950s. The aesthetic equivalent is that if Brittany Spears’ music is bad (to rescript Twain, her music isn’t as bad as it sounds), let’s go back to Dianna Shore and Guy Lombardo.
To Filmer: If your point is that much of putative “conservatism” is in fact Whig-Hamiltonian “liberalism”, then we are in agreement. Indeed to call the sponsors of the site and the editors of Commentary both “conservatives”, then the word “conservative” doesn’t mean much, and its use is confusing and obscurantist. So I use the term “Real Conservative” (which may not help much either) for the Counter-Enlightenment/Counter-Revolutionary (i.e. the French Revolution) movement, Burke and de Maistre the leading figures (but don’t count out Friedrich von Hardenburg).
What is more:
The Aristotelean traditionS are different, one mediated by Polybius, another by Aquinas and Leo XIII, another by Dante (De Monarchia), still another by Hannah Arendt (The Human Condition).
The Whig Tradition of Locke, of 1688, of Hamilton, Henry Clay, Dishonest Abe, and the Neocons is for (1) the vast centralized State (That Vast Mechanical Man, Leviathan), (2) The State’s control of the currency
(Banks of England, US, Federal Reserve), and (3) corporate welfare. Just call it Hobbes With a Loan Officer’s Face
The Libertarians (i.e. Lockeans who discovered that Locke’s fox (The State, Leviathan) was guarding the proverbial hen house) are sub-divided into Objectivists, The Paleolibertarians of the Mengerian (“Austrian”) School, and pot heads.
Then there’s the tradition of ol’ Freddy Nietzsche and his most faithful follower: Leo Strauss. And Freddy ain’t no liberal, Walter Kaufman not withstanding.
And finally we have the anarcho-primitivists, deep ecologists, and other assorted Greens, denominated as “the conservativism of the Left”.
So: If all the above — so very different — are called “conservative”, what’s left of the term?
Weaver on 29 Jun 2007 at 6:11 pm #
Harold Crews,
Glad we agree, though I do enjoy being corrected and helped to see the truth.
Sid: “Just call it Hobbes With a Loan Officer’s Face”
That’s excellent! I call myself a traditionalist most often.