"As I mentioned elsewhere, American conservatism is a strange duck. Conservatism nurtures tradition, but American tradition is freedom - and freedom allows change. It is for that reason that conservatism is not really such a terrible name for Hayek's "liberalism." "
Pro-freedom American 'conservatism' is less a 'strange duck' than a hybrid of conservative instincts and classical Liberalism that IMHO stengthens the both the ideals of freedom and virtue.
Like alloyed steel, in politics there are certain concepts that need other supporting and somewhat contrary ideals to work. A society cannot be free unless it is virtuous, and a society cannot be moral unless it is free. So although liberalism's goal of freedom and conservatism's aim of 'soulcraft' are often opposed, both ideals are improved by the other.
That is why American-style conservatism works as a positive governing philosophy.
I would say, the two are nominally opposed, but in fact are two sides of the same coin - virtue isn't virtue unless it is freely chosen. That's D'nish d'Souza's formulation, in which he says that American women dress more provocatively than the burka-clad muslim woman - but since the muslim woman didn't have a choice in the matter, the American woman may actually be more modest than the muslim. Who can say how the muslim woman would dress if she wouldn't be whipped if she didn't wear a burka?So American freedom gives more scope for virtue, just as it gives more scope for vice.
To: conservatism_IS_compassionHere's a link to the article, "Why I am not a Conservative," whose title Michelle borrowed for her essay, the subject of this thread. I couldn't say what her opinion is of Hayek's original, but even though it was written 45 years ago, it is amazingly insightful and appropos for the current discussions here on FR. I recommend it.
http://www.fahayek.org/index.php?article=177
217 posted on 05/04/2005 11:56:28 AM EDT by Sam Cree
Michelle Malkin: I'm No South Park Conservative The National Ledger ^ | May 4, 2005 | Michelle Malkin