I've spent a great deal of time attempting to articulate a working definition of conservative. The task is more complicated than one would think too, because it's meaning has changed throughout the movement's history. In fact, at least as far as I can tell, there is no single definition of conservative (in the political sense).
Searching for that definition, through discussion and study, the truth of the matter is that I'm really libertarian.
But, but, you say ... "Why do you call yourself a conservative, and confusing us more, have named your blog Classic(al) Liberal?"
Two reasons: 1) my political philosophy is that of our Founders, classical liberalism; and 2) it is that which I want to conserve - a constitutionally limited republican form of government, the Rule of Law, and procedures regarding checks and balances on power, all based on Natural Law.
It's true that it's libertarians who carry the flame of classical liberalism today, but they do so too often (for me) without emphasis on American heritage. It's not that there's anything wrong with this in and of itself, I just think it misses important aspects regarding man and his relationship with tradition.
Conservatives vs. Libertarians
Freedom and liberty have become virtually synonymous words, yet they do have different meanings. To avoid a purely etymological argument, let's define the words as follows:
- Freedom: the power to act on a voluntary basis.
- Liberty: freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control.
For example, freedom is the ability to buy or not buy health insurance. Liberty on the other hand, considers your personal relationship with the State.
A Plea To Conservatives And Libertarians
Lately I’ve seen a back and forth between some conservatives and libertarians/classical liberals that is starting to trouble me.
While both groups have many of the same ends in mind and both are clearly advocates of freedom and liberty, their underlying thinking and approaches are different. Very simply put: libertarians are ideologues and conservatives are not.
There are differences between libertarians and conservatives, but does the difference come down to "libertarians are ideologues and conservatives are not?"
"Ideology" has become the bugaboo of the day. But what exactly is ideology?
the body of doctrine, myth, belief, etc., that guides an individual, social movement, institution, class, or large group.
Everyone has a set of beliefs which guides them, therefore we all abide to an ideology. An "ideologue" is simply a person who is passionate and/or devoted to their beliefs. Is this necessarily a bad?
Being a Christian, I believe in Jesus as Savior. If I were not devoted to this belief (an ideologue), I'd have to agree (or at least consider) that Gaia is Savior too. So while there's nothing wrong with challenging your own beliefs, this example should show that commitment to your beliefs is important too.
What To Do With Those Pesky Libertarians
[T]he fact that while the ideas Libertarianism promotes are very worthy and worthwhile, practicality just gets in the way.
While it is true that most people are virtuous, moral and well meaning. Some are mean, amoral, or just downright evil and can’t be trusted. It is the latter that governments are invented to protect us from. Sometimes I think that most dyed-in-the-wool Libertarians forget this.
Libertarians are concerned with what should be illegal, but not necessarily what is proscribed by current law. As Thomas Jefferson famously stated, "law is often but the tyrant's will." For example, Hitler didn't break any laws. He was the law! This is why the Rule of Law is preferred to rule by man.
Being concerned with what should be illegal, it logically follows that libertarians do believe in laws to help protect you from those "mean, amoral, or just downright evil" people. This means too, that there's no libertarian absolute which forbidding the use of aggression. It's just that the use of force need be limited to punishing "acts only as are injurious to others."
To be effective, the Rule of Law must apply uniformly and universally in society, including to those in authority. This means a cop, judge, congressman, or president is held to the same rules as everyone else. Any other so-called laws are really political constructs, fiat by man.
War on Drugs
The War on Drugs is treated as an irreconcilable dividing line between libertarians and conservatives. But is it really?
Founder of the National Review, William F. Buckley Jr., was against the War on Drugs. Since no serious person would argue that Buckley was libertarian and not conservative, we can see that this irreconcilable divide is more rhetoric than substance - both sides are guilty of partisanship too.
Here's the reason I brought the subject up: Procedure.
Our form of government is based on a constitution, along with checks and balances. When alcohol was prohibited in the the early 20th century for example, they did it through the amendment process built into our constitution. In launching the War on Drugs however, they didn't bother with the Rule of Law or proper procedure. They relied on fiat instead.
The War on Drugs isn't authorized by the 17 enumerated powers provided to the federal government in our written constitution. It violates Natural Law too, but we'll leave that for another time.
A Libertarian friend once told me that even state or local government should have no place in your personal life. If this is the Libertarian’s belief, then they are wrong.
[T]he writers of the Constitution gave the people of each state the power to do what they want within the confines of that state. In other words, if the people of California want to legalize dope, they can. If you don’t want to live in a state that allows pot heads, move.
Leaving aside both the Natural Law argument and practicality, you really won't get much argument over this idea. That is of course, providing your state follows its own constitution and all the procedures that go with it.
As I understand it, a true Libertarian would have none of this. They would have no laws restricting personal freedom whatsoever, be they federal, state or local. While this sounds very well intentioned, it actually is an imposition of sorts. That means that I cannot, if I wish, band together with like minded individuals and form a community experiment with a certain set of rules for the town. Say, no drinking.
Libertarianism in no way violates your freedom to associate with others of your own choosing. So of course you can "band together with like minded individuals and form a community experiment with a certain set of rules for the town. Say, no drinking." It's when you demand the same "no drinking" rules on another town or state, that it creates conflict.
The Virtuous Society
I hate to break it to everyone, but just as there's never been a time when the Rule of Law (based on Natural Law) was followed perfectly, neither has there ever been a truly virtuous society. Murderers, thieves, rapists, molesters, kidnappers, drug addicts, etc., existed in 1776, just as they do today. That's the human condition. Nobody's perfect.
But we have been closer to both ends in the past, and remain ideals worthy of vigorous advocacy and action today. Use history as a teacher, keep your eyes on the future, and remember there's no use in throwing up your hands.
Irreconcilable Differences
No form of government is perfect ... They are man-made and thus subject to the failings of man ... what we should all be doing in respect to this government within the true intent and meaning of the Constitution. Not bending it to suit our own ideal of what we would have it mean.
Being that I prefer the Founder's classical liberal traditions, we agree! I'd just add that a plain-language reading be the focus.
An important thing to note too, is that there are different kinds of libertarians, just as there are different kinds of conservatives. As Russell Kirk and Bill Kristol represent different views, Murray Rothbard and F.A. Hayek had their differences too.
Many conservatives are against the current wars, while some libertarians are in support. There are pro-life libertarians and pro-choice conservatives, and Christian libertarians and atheist conservatives. Thus most of the irreconcilable differences, are actually partisan in nature.
Where we butt heads most significantly though, is on issues of power and authority. Libertarians don't trust people with power, after all, power corrupts. On the other hand, conservatives have more faith in their "leaders," often desiring them more power to boot.
For example, thieves in the White House worry me a lot more than a pothead living next door. So when someone doesn't trust people to run their own lives, it escapes me why they'd trust people they don't know (politicians) with power.
The Republican Party creates a lot of friction between libertarians and conservatives too. Conservatives are a lot more dedicated to the party than are libertarians, who look at the State as a whole.
Fusion
But something tells me that as individuals, we're not so far off ... as GatorDoug says:
[T]o paraphrase Jefferson, the government should make laws preventing people from harming one another, and stay out of their lives otherwise.
Anytime government attempts to become our nanny, it erodes our natural rights in my opinion. We are intended to be free, and any efforts that restrict that natural condition are, to me, an abomination.
Of course, this is why the people should stay vigilant and jealous of their rights ...
That's a very libertarian statement from a conservative!
We should focus on our agreements more than our differences, and people on both sides will insist it won't work too. But this blog proves otherwise.
I'm against the foreign wars, the drug war, and want the government out of the business of marriage, yet most of my audience is conservative, not libertarian. The conservatives I quoted in this post are all my friends, and there's many more too.
I link to and quote conservatives, paleo to traditional to neo, to everything in between. The same goes for libertarians ... and anarcho-capitalists, monarchists, anarchists ... even some progressives and Democrats and others on the left too.
[T]he vast majority of people in both camps believe that abortion is a matter for the states to decide, that The Constitution does not empower the national government to be involved on the issue. It is also true that a good number of libertarians favor allowing abortions to take place — most, if not all, conservatives do not. Fine. The key is we agree on the most important aspect of this issue: that it is a matter for the states. We should be working together to see that this is realized. Once it is, then we can battle it out on the state level where it should be fought.
The goal here is the utter and total defeat of Leftism.
Basically, that is ... Because beating the Democrats isn't the goal. It's Statism that must be defeated.
Well said Sir. I expected no less from a man of your learning. Was wondering on your reply and you exceeded expectations. It is through these exploratory musings and ruminations that I find a hopeful message. Thanks for a well placed retort.
Will link back when I return home.
Proud to be your friend.
[...] UPDATE: TCOTS has a plea. Gator Doug interjects. And The CL has a well placed volley. [...]
What can I say CL, this was a great post. I always close my post with "Liberty forever, freedom for all!"
I too want to conserve the foundation of our Constitution and embrace the principles of the founding fathers. I also believe that government needs to be strictly limited while individualism over collectivism should be championed. So tell me, am I a conservative or libertarian? Or does it even matter?
Who knows? Get 2 or more people in a room and there's gonna be disagreement. I think the most important thing is to open yourself up to freedom lovers with whom you sometimes (or often) disagree.
The deepest cleavages between classical-liberal libertarianism and modern, pro-freedom conservatism have to do with "vice," ingress control, and foreign dealings. In respect of those topics, you might find this old essay to be of interest.
Yes. For the purposes of the post though, I left it to the basics of power and authority. I've gone into more detail in other posts, and also read yours and think it's very good. I should round those up and put them together in a post.
Btw, I enjoy Eternity Road!
You're wrong - Libertarians do not restrict people from setting up communes if they so desire.
It is that Libertarians allow people to do whatever they want to do as long as it doesn't threaten another's life or liberty. We tend to err on the side of individual liberty to prevent the government from taking advantage of any form of regulation (such as the issue of abortion).
Conservatives and Libertarians agree on 75% of all issues, basically.
Read On Liberty (John Stuart Mill) for an explanation of the true differences.
What I said was:
So I'm not wrong, you and I are in complete agreement.