Liberalism's position with respect to other political philosophies, and their mutual relations, has always been a subject of controversial debate. A good many commentators consider it as a decidedly “right-wing” and hence conservative movement, including many libertarians themselves, while others point at the historical development, according to which most advocates of individual liberty have usually been left-leaning. In addition, there are those who view it as some kind of midway between the Left and the Right, using some proposals from each side while rejecting the rest of their respective programmes.
I do not wish to enter this last discussion here, which more often than not evolves into futile semantic quarrels. Let me instead investigate what is nowadays usually taken to be a synonym for a policy of free markets and limited government and compare it with our own libertarian philosophy. That is, do we share common ground with conservatism or are we purely antagonistic forces? And, depending on the outcome of this question, would it make sense to seek not only temporary, strategic alliances with conservative movements, but even to establish a permanent cooperation, united in the desire to make society a freer place?
There's a lot to say on this subject, which is why I decided to split its elaboration into a series of articles. And obviously, what needs to be done before any serious examination can take place, one must attempt to find the essence of the conservative creed and uncover its spirit. For it is an amalgam of quite diverse schools, which in turn would make it easy to dispute the claims I will make with regard to it. Essentially, this is what the first part of the series will be about. I shall try to give as faithful and vivid a portrait of conservatism as possible in this frame.
Of course, no debate on conservatism vs. liberalism would be complete without F.A. Hayek's famous postscript to his seminal Constitution of Liberty, entitled Why I Am Not A Conservative. Indeed, it serves as a great starting point for a sketch of the conservative mind, which is then to be extended and completed.
As the title indicates unambiguously, Hayek's purpose was to outline the sharp demarcation between his own liberal views and what he interprets as conservatism proper. Even though he cannot identify himself with it, he expresses mild inclinations towards it, calling it a “legitimate, probably necessary, and certainly widespread attitude of opposition to drastic change.” According to him, merely opposing changes is the reason why conservatism today looks so much different from conservatism hundred or even fifty years ago:
[B]y its very nature it cannot offer an alternative to the direction in which we are moving...The position which can be rightly described as conservative at any time depends, therefore, on the direction of existing tendencies...He [the Conservative] holds merely a mild and moderate version of the prejudices of his time.
As if this were not already enough, they “are inclined to use the powers of government to prevent change or to limit its rate to whatever appeals to the more timid mind.” Frequently, even well-established new knowledge is rejected because one dislikes its apparent consequences, which “[i]n the last resort [amounts to] the belief that in any society there are recognizably superior persons whose inherited standards and values and position ought to be protected and who should have a greater influence on public affairs than others.”
Since then, many people have rejected Hayek's position. And indeed, if this were the true spirit of conservatism, it would be an almost ridiculous position to hold. It is, however, an important part of the conservative ideology and has been stressed by numerous of its champions, e.g. Michael Oakeshott.
By and large, following Edmund Burke, one may summarize this as the need for something better to replace the current unsatisfactory state of affairs.
Still, the essence of change is that one cannot always predict its outcomes, which might just as well result in a total aversion of change, as portrayed by Hayek. It makes sense, therefore, to introduce a distinction here between a conservative attitude and conservative politics, as suggested by Madsen Pirie, President of the Adam Smith Institute. He observes quite correctly that the former, which is usually taken to be a political stance, is first and foremost a personal trait. Fear of the unknown, a timid and almost hostile approach to anything new best describes what people of conservative attitude are like. As such, they are rather introverted and shy. Thus, while they hope for someone to help maintain the status quo, they rarely go into politics themselves, being all about debating and altering legislation. On the other hand, Pirie believes that a conservative does not have to share this attitude. What he is opposed to is not change per se, but imposed change. In words that any libertarian could embrace, he states that “[p]olitical conservatives do not seek any particular order; they seek the unknown one which will emerge gradually if preconceived ends are denied.”
Could embrace, I should add, if this were true. Nielsen, like many others, has fallen in the rhetorical trap brilliantly set up by the great strategists from the Right. Knowing that a significant portion of their prospective voters reject political interventions in the market, they stylized their leaders to free-market advocates. After the elections, of course, the vast majority of them continued the same old devastating third-way/mild-socialism version of economic policy as the precursors, and more often than not even aggravating the old, adopted measures. Prime examples in this context are surely Ronald Reagon and Winston Churchill.
One may put this even more forcefully. Contrary to Hayek, who held that nothing but intellectual error led the conservatives to adopt their position and always assumed that his intellectual enemies were merely mistaken to some extent, we should ask if there is really no intention behind it. Conservative leaders might be quite aware of their illiberal politics and nevertheless promote them, simply because it benefits some – their clientele – at the expense of the rest of the population. Much of the conservative legislature serves nothing but vested interests of high-rank bureaucrats, public authorities and Big Business, i.e. nowadays' elites. From this perspective, it seems valid to perceive conservatism as plain and simple Realpolitik.
We have not yet looked into a third component frequently found on the Right. Traditional morals, or generally strong moral convictions play a very important role here. The classical family with pronounced intergenerational bonds, church and religion, diligence and hard work, engagement within the community, respect for the elders and authorities or refraining from drugs are some of the ideas associated with it. Even though these are often justified by expressing the wish to preserve the old order, this need not be so. Some social conservatives base their beliefs on statistical or evolutionary findings, some on theological reasoning, some by “that's the way it's always, and shall forever, be”. Many approaches are possible.
Without judging this point of view, let us contend that there is no logical connection between social conservatism and liberalism in the first place. One can adhere to both, one or neither of them without contradicting oneself. If and as long as conservative values are not imposed on others by force, it is in accordance with the libertarian live and let live. We know that a good many of them are lobbying exactly for this, but this is a psychological curiosity and of little interest at this point.
Having circumscribed what I take to be the conservative position in some detail, I will present my take on social conservatism and describe under which circumstances and can be considered an enemy for liberty, and why it is itself harmed by the whole statist programme of welfare-warfarism it usually restores to. To this end, it will be helpful to dedicate one post to the questions of authority vs. power/might. Moreover, we'll see if the emphasis on morals so dear to most conservatives is of any help to the libertarian cause. And of course, there's always the chance that another point worth elaborating on pops up in discussions.