What Is A Conservative?
by Gregory Norton
Issue 139 - September 16, 2009

Some time ago, a caller told Rush Limbaugh he (the caller) was a proud Liberal. When asked "Why?" the caller said Liberals were for individual freedom and human progress. Great!

How many Democratic candidates will that young man vote for before figuring out the smiley-faced authoritarians known as Liberals want to tell him:

• What medical care he can receive;
• What automobiles car companies can offer to sell him;
• What he must save for retirement, using the retirement system the Liberals devised;
• What he can and cannot do with his property if a certain slug or mouse happens to live on the property;
• That he must give much of the money he earns to charities designed by the Liberals;
• Whether or not he can carry a weapon to defend himself from criminals;
• That he must wear a seatbelt or motorcycle helmet;
• When he must start his children in school and what they must be taught;
• How much water his toilet uses for each flush; What temperature he maintains in his house, and how much energy he can use;

...and enforce their control by the threat of violence if he disobeys?

Will the caller ever figure out that the true champions of liberty and progress by trial-and-error proudly call themselves Conservatives, a name equally descriptive of aristocrats protecting their special privileges and flat-Earthers who consider technical advances the works of the Devil and want to prevent people from having fun on Sundays?

If all you knew about the American Conservative Union was its name, would you conclude it is a champion of individual liberty and respect for the wisdom of tradition, or would you, as I did, wonder if it favored Biblical literalism, compulsory church attendance, keeping racial minorities "in their places", jailing of fornicators, and limiting political power to those families who traditionally exercised it? The name doesn't tell you.

Tradition is important to all philosophies known as "conservative", clearly it is key to Conservatism, but in what way? Treatment of tradition differs.

Plato was a Conservative, advocating return to the traditions that citizens exist for, and live to serve, the state. 18th century English Tories were Conservative, defending the traditional privileges of the aristocracy and the restrictions on the liberties of non-aristocrats William F. Buckley Jr. was a Conservative, defending the once-radical liberties and economic freedoms that became the defining traditions of the United States.

There are at least three distinct attitudes towards tradition:

1. It is tradition, it exists, it is the way things are supposed to be, we must fight to preserve it.
2. It is tradition, it works, we must be careful about wholesale changes.
3. It is tradition, it isn't perfect, it doesn't make sense [to me, whoever "me" is], we should throw out all of it and start over in a rational way.

The first two are "Conservatism".

The first is classical Toryism, very different from one.

The second, is the "Conservatism" of John Locke, Adam Smith, F.A, Hayek and Milton Friedman, and those who founded the U.S.

The third is Rationalist-Progressivism descending from Rousseau (the ultimate romantic reactionary), today called simply "Liberalism" by both its advocates and its opponents.

The nomenclature is confused, and regularly expropriated and abused by the enemies of individual liberty. Ludwig von Mises, Hayek's mentor, unambiguously described himself as a liberal, yet his views on society were in direct opposition to the Rationalist-Progressivism those of FDR, Edward Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, and President Obama. Yet the latter proudly claim to be the successors of the classical Liberal movement Mises belonged to. They liked the name "Liberal" so they stole it.

For all these reasons, the terms "Liberal" and "Conservative" are inadequate, confusing, and work to the detriment of what William F. Buckley and Barry Goldwater - the founders of the modern movement - called "Conservatism".

"Collectivism" and "Individualism", though lacking panache, may be clearer and less subject to self-serving misapplication by the enemies of individual liberty. This bi-polarity also generates different groupings of political thought.

The confusion comes from buying into the fraud initiated by the smiley-faced authoritarians, the Progressives who stole the name "liberal" and sneeringly called their opponents "conservatives". Buckley and Goldwater tried to change the meaning of "Conservative" but in doing so they partially defanged themselves and abetted their opponents. The authoritarian Progressives benefit from being known as Liberals and from their opponents being known as Conservatives.

Who controls the language controls the outcome. It is not possible to explain who you are using terms with ambiguous meanings. I've suggested alternatives, but is that practical? It may be sufficient to be aware of the imprecision and the problems caused by that confusion; and be clear about what kind of "Conservatives" we are.

Greg Norton is a high-tech marketing professional and student of Economics and Political Philosophy. He has written numerous essays on liberty, available at http://classic-liberal.blogspot.com

Post this article to your Facebook profile