Who’s a liberal, who’s a conservative?

The work of defining the basic political concepts and categories that we use is never wasted, and I hope the below will be of value to readers. Jeff in England writes:

I was just listening to Dennis Prager, one of my favourite conservative talk show hosts. He just declared that he is a Kennedy liberal (as opposed to any other sort of liberal). This mix up about liberalism seems to be the new hip thing or some sort of epidemic. Either they are hiding it à la Robert Spencer’s liberalism or they are declaring it as their true identity despite their own conservative positions à la Melanie Phillips and Prager. A sort of epidemic! Weird!

LA replies:

Pretty funny.

Jeff then wrote a long e-mail in which I’ve interjected my replies.

Jeff: These “contradictions” of Spencer, Phillips, Prager etc. further necessitate the need to clarify the current (and past) definitions of conservatism and liberalism and the differences between them. You, more than most analysts, have tried to bring clarity to the table (which you were trying to do with Spencer in your recent correspondence). Still, it seems many conservatives in particular are confused (or possibly ashamed à la Spencer) about their conservatism and feel the need to invoke what they consider to be liberal ideals. When you have the likes of Phillips, Prager and Spencer trumpeting certain “liberal” viewpoints and attitudes (whether they admit it or not), one has to wonder why. What is it about conservatism that they cannot identify with?

LA: They identify liberalism with the idea that the primary purpose of society is the protection of individual rights and its corollary, non-discrimination against people because of their ethnic, religious, racial background. Conservatism (genuine conservatism) implies that there are values that trump individual rights, such as the preservation of the particular culture of a given society.

Jeff: Or do they know the accurate definitions of those words, liberalism and conservatism? Are Melanie, Prager and Spencer and others what they think they are? I’ve already asked: is the encouragement of immigration (legal) inherently liberal. Or opposing it what is known as racism?

LA: Yes, I would say the encouragement of legal diverse immigration is inherently liberal. And a liberal would have to see conservative opposition to that as racist.

Jeff: And where does capitalism fit in? I feel people may be using definitions of their political identity in inaccurate ways. Certainly definitions seem in flux. Thatcher’s “conservatism” and yours are two different planets. As I’ve said before Thatcher had similarities to a 19th century liberal.

LA: The difference between free enterprise and state ownership is the difference between liberal and leftist. How does conservative fit in that issue? The (genuine) conservative’s main concern is the preservation of a particular cultural/moral order. This obviously doesn’t mean he’s against individual rights, such as property rights and the right of speech, as such rights are part of the Christian, Western, Anglo-American social order, but he opposes individual rights when they are taken to the point of threatening the Western social order that makes the rights possible in the first place. He’s not particularly concerned about equality, though he may not like extreme forms of inequality because they are bad for the social order a a whole, and therefore he may accept various forms of state or collective action if he sees it as helpful to the health of the social order. Thus Buchanan (if we want to consider him a conservative, which I no longer do because I see him as primarily driven by resentments rather than any adherence to principle) favors tariffs, which restrains free enterprise. So there could be some overlap between leftists and conservatives vis à vis state interference in the economy, though this would arise from different motives.

Jeff: The neo-cons often seem like what are known as Kennedy liberals. Buchanan’s populist anti-globalisation views have a lot of similarity to those of anti-globalisation radical activists. Yet he would never call himself a leftist. And vice versa. The BNP is quasi socialist as I’ve pointed out.

LA: The anti-globalization radical activists are against free enterprise. They want global socialism. They are leftists rebelling against the liberal project of a single borderless world of capitalism. Buchanan is against both a single borderless world of capitalism and against a global socialism. While the BNP has socialist elements, its primary concern is the preservation and restoration of the ethnocultural integrity of Britain. I think it has favored certain socialist measures because it sees them strengthening the nation as a nation, as against liberalism which tends to toward open borders and globalization. Now, to get at your implied question, what if a movement were both genuinely nationalist and genuinely socialist? Would it it the right or on the left? I can’t get my head around that question at the moment. But as for BNP, it is on the right because its primary concern is the preservation of a particular historical society and people.

Jeff: Many UK Muslims (and other ethnic immigrant groups) have much in common with traditionalist conservatives even if they would never call themselves by that name.

LA: You always emphasize this idea. I think it’s insignificant. The Muslims and Western traditional conservatives are on different planets culturally and religiously, far wider apart than, say, a 19th century liberal like Thatcher and me. Any overlap about moral values is insignificant compared to their differences.

Jeff: And on the other side of the spectrum where do we draw the line between liberals and leftists? Or Greens for that matter, as they reject much of conservatism and liberalism or think they do. Few liberals or leftist would invoke conservative ideals as conservatives do liberal ideals (now why is that?) but many have their own confusion over their political identity; in the sixties we leftists would rather have been dead rather than being identified as a liberal. Yet in modern times there seems to be more blurring of the lines between them.

LA: I don’t know much about Greens, but I’ve addressed the other question. There is a blurring between liberals and leftists for the reasons I’ve often written about. The belief in individual rights and non-discrimination leads ineluctably to multiculturalism. Once you deny the importance of the particularity of your own culture and make individual rights the ruling idea, you admit people of all cultures. But in reality these people are not abstract rights-bearing individuals, they are culture-bearing people. They still have their culture, while we’ve given up ours, so their cultures take over. So, in the realm of culture and ethnicity, individual rights Kennedy liberalism leads to Tony Blair multiculturalism. In the realm of economics, a parallel development occurs. The belief in a single borderless world of capitalism (all men have equal right to engage in economic interchange regardless of national boundaries) involves the elimination of the sovereign nation state. Once the nation is out of the way, and there is a single global capitalist system, this global capitalist system will naturally evolve toward a single global welfare state to equalize outcomes and provide security, just as tends to happen on the national level. That is why only conservatism or traditionalism can stand against the global state, just as only conservatism or traditionalism can stand against multiculturalism.

Jeff: I’ve already mentioned that many anti-globalists have some views in common with the likes of Buchanan. I would also add that many anarchists with their emphasis on personal freedom have much in common with certain conservatives. Karl Hess was a well known conservative anarchist of his time. OK, you get the picture: far more clarity is needed especially as definitions of political identity seem to be in a muddle as do many of the people trumpeting those identities.

LA: Genuine Western conservatives, i.e. traditionalists, believe in the essential social and moral order of their nation and civilization. I don’t see any significant overlap between such conservatives and anarchists, though they may both oppose oppressive state action.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at June 22, 2006 08:04 AM | Send