Classical liberalism is close to conservative and a lot better than the anarchistic mentality that many classify as liberal nowadays when it is not.
What really drives the NeverTrumpers is they don’t want us undoing their 30 year bipartisan policy of importation of cheap labor.
Bmk
“The fact that this book was originally written with only the British public in mind does not appear to have seriously affected its intelligibility for the American reader. But there is one point of phraseology which I ought to explain here to forestall any misunderstanding. I use throughout the term “liberal” in the original, nineteenth-century sense in which it is still current in Britain. In current American usage it often means very nearly the opposite of this. It has been part of the camouflage of leftish movements in this country, helped by the muddleheadedness of many who really believe in liberty, that “liberal” has come to mean the advocacy of almost every kind of government control. I am still puzzled why those in the United States who truly believe in liberty should not only have allowed the left to appropriate this almost indispensable term but should even have assisted by beginning to use it themselves as a term of opprobrium. This seems to be particularly regrettable because of the consequent tendency of many true liberals to describe themselves as conservatives.
It is true, of course, that in the struggle against the believers in the all-powerful state the true liberal must sometimes make common cause with the conservative, and in some circumstances, as in contemporary Britain, he has hardly any other way of actively working for his ideals. But true liberalism is still distinct from conservatism, and there is danger in the two being confused. Conservatism, though a necessary element in any stable society, is not a social program; in its paternalistic, nationalistic, and power-adorning tendencies it is often closer to socialism than true liberalism; and with its traditionalistic, anti-intellectual, and often mystical propensities it will never, except in short periods of disillusionment, appeal to the young and all those others who believe that some changes are desirable if this world is to become a better place. A conservative movement, by its very nature, is bound to be a defender of established privilege and to lean on the power of government for the protection of privilege. The essence of the liberal position, however, is the denial of all privilege, if privilege is understood in its proper and original meaning of the state granting and protecting rights to some which are not available on equal terms to others.”(1)
“I use the term “liberal” in the nineteenth-century sense of limited government and free markets, not in the corrupted sense it has acquired in the United States, in which it means almost the opposite.” (2)
(1) Entire passage from The Road to Serfdom, F. A. Hayek, 1956 preface.
(2) this quote from the 1994 introduction by Milton Friedman.
Here are a couple more quotes from “The Road to Serfdom”;
“The word “truth” ceases to have its old meaning. It describes no longer something to be found, with the individual conscience as the sole arbiter of whether in any particular instance the evidence (or the standing of those proclaiming it) warrants a belief; it becomes instead something to be laid down by authority, something to be believed in the interest of the unity of the organized effort and which may have to be altered as the exigencies of this organized effort require it.”
“It is true, of course, that in the struggle against the believers in the all-powerful state the true liberal must sometimes make common cause with the conservative, and in some circumstances, as in contemporary Britain, he has hardly any other way of actively working for his ideals. But true liberalism is still distinct from conservatism, and there is danger in the two being confused. Conservatism, though a necessary element in any stable society, is not a social program; in its paternalistic, nationalistic, and power-adorning tendencies it is often closer to socialism than true liberalism; and with its traditionalistic, anti-intellectual, and often mystical propensities it will never, except in short periods of disillusionment, appeal to the young and all those others who believe that some changes are desirable if this world is to become a better place. A conservative movement, by its very nature, is bound to be a defender of established privilege and to lean on the power of government for the protection of privilege. The essence of the liberal position, however, is the denial of all privilege, if privilege is understood in its proper and original meaning of the state granting and protecting rights to some which are not available on equal terms to others.”
The first mistake is to believe Kristol and Krauthammer are conservatives.
The Cold War was coming to an end, and Mr. Krauthammer proposed it should be supplanted by what he called “Universal Dominion” (the title of the essay): America was going to create a Western “super-sovereign” that would establish peace and prosperity throughout the world. The cost would be “the conscious depreciation not only of American sovereignty, but of the notion of sovereignty in general.”
So Charles Krauthammer is a NEW WORLD ORDER fascist.
BUMP
e.g. William Kristol and Robert Kagan presented a similar view in their 1996 essay “Toward a Neo-Reaganite Foreign Policy” in Foreign Affairs, which proposed an American “benevolent global hegemony” that would have “preponderant influence and authority over all others in its domain.”
That is not conservatism. That is neo-imperialism in wolf's clothing, and even GWB and Dick Cheney and all the filthy lucre that the Fed could print couldn't bring about that happy state of affairs. It's an idea that is as dead as the Athenian Empire when it took on the Syracuse Expedition and bankrupted itself. Conservatives believe in learning from history. The believe that the human is fallible and to exceed the limits on human understanding is hubris - and will be punished by God.
I’d be interested in a Burkean view of this essay.
It’s an interesting article, but misses the mark as far as I am concerned.
I’ve always considered myself to be a classical liberal and a conservative. Since “liberals” are really socialists, I describe myself as conservative. My personal definition of conservative is to conserve Western civilization but without the failed branch of Marxism/socialism.
Libertarian thought is interesting. I think it was Jonah Goldberg who observed that it was always talk of drug legalization that filled the seats for libertarian speakers. Perhaps if they started with “of course we have to keep drugs out of the schools,” I might take the movement more seriously.
In the past, people distinguished between economic conservatives and social conservatives. I feel at home with both groups, so no problem for me. Also, I think it is a winning ticket.
I worked with a retired military officer who told me that Hitler expected to be stopped on several early occasions, but no one did. I think this is the nugget that suggests to some people that an early, even if unpopular, intervention is better than a later, popular, but very costly (in US lives) intervention. This type of conservatism is at odds with an isolationist conservatism.
It was George Washington who said we should not become embroiled in European wars. Yet we have had three: World War I, World War II, and the War against communism.
I think an eclectic approach is best. But the main thing is, don’t screw-up. By all accounts, Kennedy should have provided air support for the Bay of Pigs invasion. As to Vietnam, I believe Nixon won the war, but after Watergate, the Democratic Congress abandoned South Vietnam. Simply shameful. Jimmy Carter undermined the pro-American Shah of Iran, thereby turning Iran into a Muslim supremacist state. Perhaps we are too divided to conduct foreign policy.
The author states early on:
“second, a series of events—from the failed attempt to bring democracy to Iraq to the implosion of Wall Street—that have made the prevailing conservative ideology seem naive and reckless to the broader conservative public.”
Democracy for Muslim countries means Sharia law. We must remember that our country is a Republic, not a pure democracy. Iraq needed a firm Constitution permitting freedom of religion. So Bush screwed-up. Very few people called him on it at the time. Obama the Islamphile has only been bad news ever since. President Hussein has been bad for the Middle-East and probably bad for the domestic war on terrorism. I suspect the FBI badly deeds an overhaul to put (non-Muslim) Americans first.
The implosion on Wall St was not a failure of the market. For decades the US Government meddled in the mortgage market with the goal of making/rewarding banks to make more and more and more mortgages available. When banks follow government policy and things go wrong, at least consider blaming government.
The article is philosophical, but few people hew to one philosophy when considering the multitude of decisions that must be made in their lives or by the Government.
Just as the word “liberal” has been distorted in the American context so as to have lost its meaning, the word “conservative” has been fuzzed a bit too.
In general terms, American conservatives are classic liberals rooted in a Judeo-Christian world view. So was Locke. So were the founders.
As for whether or not “classic liberalism” will “work” everywhere in the world, you have to remember that not everyone is interested in freedom. They are interested in power. In the contest between Rousseau and Locke, most of the world chose Rousseau, including most Americans. Locke hangs on with a few stubborn souls who also cling to their guns and their Bibles.
Conservatives want to learn from experience what actually holds societies together, benefits them and destroys them.
Such logic escapes the progressive mind.
Globalist neocons suck. Three words. All you need to know.