Is Conservatism just NeoTraditionalism these days?

[Wizard22]

It is clear that 'Liberty' must be restrained by something...and what is that "something" exactly?

Duty, Obligation, Honor, Tradition, Sacrifice—Conservative values.

[Wizard22]

"Liberalism" has today become another tricky word, though. It used to be associated with what is now called "Classical Liberalism," emphasizing the rights and freedoms of the individual. You can see this in the American Constitution, for example: once regarded as a liberal document (certainly not a monarchist one), it is today hated by the Left, and the rights it describes are frequently denied by those whose desire is to foment a more Socialist future.

Individual rights are now an important dividing line. Only conservatives seem to want to keep them: the Left is campaigning instead for a very fictive idea indeed, called "group rights." Whereas conservatives believe rights inhere in the individual, the Socialist Left subordinates all individuals to their group identity, and gives the group's interests priority over the rights of any individual within the group, and certainly any outside of the group. The universal human rights with which the Declaration of Independence begins are not something the Left believes in at all...not any right to life, to liberty or to property. Moreover, the Constitutional right to free speech, or to defense of property, or to freedom of association, are all denied by the contemporary Left, which is devoted to "making plans for Nigel," so to speak, rather than to "Nigel's" personal freedom.

You might be a Classical Liberal, Gary...unless you advocate Socialism, in which case you're not a Classical Liberal but something like a Neo-Marxist of one or another stripe. But I think you're not quite decided on that, unless I miss my guess.

I think that, realizing that there is very little or relatively No political power in Western individuals, the Socialist-Leftists instead move against Collectives, using "Our Democracy" to gain political-power.

So you're right, they're not (Classical) "Liberals" per se, but they definitely act nefariously under the banner of Liberalism.

That makes Liberalism weak...and it's why the Liberal-Leftists cannot differentiate from the Marxists, when marching under the banner of Antifa or BLM...

[Gary Childress]

That might be a fundamental difference of "liberalism" vs "conservatism". As a term, my understanding is that liberal gets its root from Latin "liber" meaning "free" (to be distinguished from the Latin homonym "liber" meaning "book"). whereas conservatism draws its root from cōnservō (“to preserve”). It's an interesting dichotomy, a bit like "pro-life" versus "pro-choice" within the abortion debate, they are fundamentally opposites and yet they both have their rational motives, I think.

"Liberalism" has today become another tricky word, though. It used to be associated with what is now called "Classical Liberalism," emphasizing the rights and freedoms of the individual. You can see this in the American Constitution, for example: once regarded as a liberal document (certainly not a monarchist one), it is today hated by the Left, and the rights it describes are frequently denied by those whose desire is to foment a more Socialist future.

Individual rights are now an important dividing line. Only conservatives seem to want to keep them: the Left is campaigning instead for a very fictive idea indeed, called "group rights." Whereas conservatives believe rights inhere in the individual, the Socialist Left subordinates all individuals to their group identity, and gives the group's interests priority over the rights of any individual within the group, and certainly any outside of the group. The universal human rights with which the Declaration of Independence begins are not something the Left believes in at all...not any right to life, to liberty or to property. Moreover, the Constitutional right to free speech, or to defense of property, or to freedom of association, are all denied by the contemporary Left, which is devoted to "making plans for Nigel," so to speak, rather than to "Nigel's" personal freedom.

You might be a Classical Liberal, Gary...unless you advocate Socialism, in which case you're not a Classical Liberal but something like a Neo-Marxist of one or another stripe. But I think you're not quite decided on that, unless I miss my guess.

I'm not sure what I am, but I've read a lot of Noam Chomsky's writings and have formed a lot of my political awareness around them.

[Gary Childress]

Well, what is Liberalism except Liberating your Self at its most craven, wanton, and envious desires???

Is it not, "unlocking the Beast within?" or that "all selfish desires manifest?"

On the extreme end, it can be.

[Gary Childress]

Though, I think in that respect you are broaching more of an issue of "individualism" (one's individual desires, identity, etc) and what would traditionally be called "socialism" (one's responsibilities to the society around oneself). It's a dichotomy that is a little different in focus, I think.

[Immanuel Can]

That makes Liberalism weak...and it's why the Liberal-Leftists cannot differentiate from the Marxists, when marching under the banner of Antifa or BLM...

I don't think they deserve the name "liberal" any longer. It's a useful term, but they've abandoned all it really stands for. They've sold out the position of individual rights and freedoms, and opted instead to campaign for mob rule and totalitarian governance. They're certainly not Classical Liberals, today; so I prefer just to call them "Neo-Marxists" or "the Left." It keeps things clear.

[Immanuel Can]

I'm not sure what I am, but I've read a lot of Noam Chomsky's writings and have formed a lot of my political awareness around them.

Ugh. Chomsky. Does anybody take that guy seriously anymore?

[Gary Childress]

I'm not sure what I am, but I've read a lot of Noam Chomsky's writings and have formed a lot of my political awareness around them.

Ugh. Chomsky. Does anybody take that guy seriously anymore?

Why do you not take him seriously? What did he say that you believe is wrong or disagreeable?

[Gary Childress]

That makes Liberalism weak...and it's why the Liberal-Leftists cannot differentiate from the Marxists, when marching under the banner of Antifa or BLM...

I don't think they deserve the name "liberal" any longer. It's a useful term, but they've abandoned all it really stands for. They've sold out the position of individual rights and freedoms, and opted instead to campaign for mob rule and totalitarian governance. They're certainly not Classical Liberals, today; so I prefer just to call them "Neo-Marxists" or "the Left." It keeps things clear.

Who is "they"? And if "they" aren't liberals, then they aren't liberals and someone else is. So why call them "liberals"?

[Immanuel Can]

I'm not sure what I am, but I've read a lot of Noam Chomsky's writings and have formed a lot of my political awareness around them.

Ugh. Chomsky. Does anybody take that guy seriously anymore?

Why do you not take him seriously? What did he say that you believe is wrong or disagreeable?

He's a Marxist. He hates America, and yet he draws all its benefits and gets his fame from it. And he's almost always wrong. Those are pretty good reasons, I'd say.

[Immanuel Can]

That makes Liberalism weak...and it's why the Liberal-Leftists cannot differentiate from the Marxists, when marching under the banner of Antifa or BLM...

I don't think they deserve the name "liberal" any longer. It's a useful term, but they've abandoned all it really stands for. They've sold out the position of individual rights and freedoms, and opted instead to campaign for mob rule and totalitarian governance. They're certainly not Classical Liberals, today; so I prefer just to call them "Neo-Marxists" or "the Left." It keeps things clear.

Who is "they"? And if "they" aren't liberals, then they aren't liberals and someone else is. So why call them "liberals"?

It's what they call themselves. But they're not entitled to the name, because they've forsaken the Classical Liberal principles, and now work to abolish them. As has been pointed out, it's like Antifa, who act like Nazis and use exactly the same tactics as Hitler's brownshirts, or BLM, which apparently only stands for "Buy Large Mansions." They certainly don't care about "black lives," since all they do is all the charitable donations they've been given, deprive their people of policing, burn their own neighbourhoods, and do nothing about any real source of black deaths.

That's what the Left loves to do -- to claim liberal virtues they not only do not uphold, but which they actively work to destroy.

[Gary Childress]

I don't think they deserve the name "liberal" any longer. It's a useful term, but they've abandoned all it really stands for. They've sold out the position of individual rights and freedoms, and opted instead to campaign for mob rule and totalitarian governance. They're certainly not Classical Liberals, today; so I prefer just to call them "Neo-Marxists" or "the Left." It keeps things clear.

Who is "they"? And if "they" aren't liberals, then they aren't liberals and someone else is. So why call them "liberals"?

It's what they call themselves. But they're not entitled to the name, because they've forsaken the Classical Liberal principles, and now work to abolish them. As has been pointed out, it's like Antifa, who act like Nazis and use exactly the same tactics as Hitler's brownshirts, or BLM, which apparently only stands for "Buy Large Mansions." They certainly don't care about "black lives," since all they do is all the charitable donations they've been given, deprive their people of policing, burn their own neighbourhoods, and do nothing about any real source of black deaths.

That's what the Left loves to do -- to claim liberal virtues they not only do not uphold, but which they actively work to destroy.

OK. Then the "left" is not synonymous with "liberals". As I pointed out "left" goes back to the French Revolution and those who stood against the monarchy.

[Consul]

That might be a fundamental difference of "liberalism" vs "conservatism". As a term, my understanding is that liberal gets its root from Latin "liber" meaning "free" (to be distinguished from the Latin homonym "liber" meaning "book"). whereas conservatism draws its root from cōnservō (“to preserve”). It's an interesting dichotomy, a bit like "pro-life" versus "pro-choice" within the abortion debate, they are fundamentally opposites and yet they both have their rational motives, I think.

I think liberals perhaps tend to stress personal freedom a bit more, possibly too much so in some ways. It seems like Conservatives tend to hold a little tighter to cultural traditions and roles. So "deviation" is maybe more a concern for conservatism than liberalism.

I suppose as kind of the odd man out, I tend to identify more with liberalism.

There is a conservative liberalism (right-liberalism), which overlaps with liberal conservatism; and there is also a libertarian conservatism.

"Libertarian conservatism

Although conservatism draws heavily on pre-industrial ideas such as organicism, hierarchy and obligation, the ideology has also been much influenced by liberal ideas, especially classical liberal ideas. This is sometimes seen as a late twentieth-century development, neoliberals having in some way ‘hijacked’ conservatism in the interests of classical liberalism. Nevertheless, liberal doctrines, especially those concerning the free market, have been advanced by conservatives since the late eighteenth century, and can be said to constitute a rival tradition to conservative paternalism. These ideas are libertarian in that they advocate the greatest possible economic liberty and the least possible government regulation of social life. Libertarian conservatives have not simply converted to liberalism, but believe that liberal economics is compatible with a more traditional, conservative social philosophy, based on values such as authority and duty. This is evident in the work of Edmund Burke, in many ways the founder of traditional conservatism, but also a keen supporter of the economic liberalism of Adam Smith.

Libertarian conservatives are not, however, consistent liberals. They believe in economic individualism and ‘getting government off the back of business’, but are less prepared to extend this principle of individual liberty to other aspects of social life. Conservatives, even libertarian conservatives, have a more pessimistic view of human nature. A strong state is required to maintain public order and ensure that authority is respected. Indeed, in some respects libertarian conservatives are attracted to free-market theories precisely because they promise to secure social order. Whereas liberals have believed that the market economy preserves individual liberty and freedom of choice, conservatives have at times been attracted to the market as an instrument of social discipline. Market forces regulate and control economic and social activity. For example, they may deter workers from pushing for wage increases by threatening them with unemployment. As such, the market can be seen as an instrument that maintains social stability and works alongside the more evident forces of coercion: the police and the courts. While some conservatives have feared that market capitalism will lead to endless innovation and restless competition, upsetting social cohesion, others have been attracted to it in the belief that it can establish a ‘market order’, sustained by impersonal ‘natural laws’ rather than the guiding hand of political authority. Nevertheless, the relationship between conservatism and economic libertarianism deepened further as a result of the emergence of neoliberalism."

(Heywood, Andrew. Political Ideologies: An Introduction. 7th ed. London: Red Globe/Macmillan, 2021. pp. 61-2)

[FlashDangerpants]

I would say that there's fairly widespread use of the term with a big C and I would say that if we wish to have monolithic terms such as "Liberalism", "The Left" and so on, then "Conservatism" should probably qualify with a similar set of caveats to those others.

I don't think so, and I did say why. The Left has a particular, identifiable set of ideological derivations and theories. They've got their Marx, their Foucault, their Gramsci, their Freire, etc., all penning manifestos of what kind of Socialism they aim to create.

Conservatism, by contrast, is a sort of general impulse that binds widely disparate groups together, and has no central ideological commitments. They have no singular manifestos, and for anybody one might name as the progenitor of conservatism, one would find most of the field would disagree with that. Conservatism's just a kind of "mood" or "impulse" to preserve some legacy but it's a little thin on saying what the specific legacy is that should be "conserved." With regard to content, it's highly variable, actually.

That also explains why rounding up any single "conservative movement" is like trying to herd cats. They're not naturally inclined to stick together at all. But Socialism seems to be the glue that keeps the Left a monolythic ideological entity.

I'm sorry but here you are simply sbjecting the thing you like (the right) to a less difficult test than the thing you don't like (The Left). Both are comprised of loosely packed dirt that you can usefully choose to treat as some combined entity only for the purposes of a limited conversation. It just so happens that you consistently do make that chouce when you personally wish to describe one and you refuse to see the option at all in discussion of the other. I don't care either way, but I do recommend consistency.

Instead of the historical science that Marxists adore, Conservatives tend more towards such explanations of historical tendency as Manifest Destiny, Protestant Work Ethic, perhaps with a little dash of the Invisible Hand of the markets.

I don't think they really do. "Manifest Destiny" is an ideological curiosity very peculiar to America, not to conservatives. The Protestant work ethic is actually a construct of Weber, which he premises on a minority religious position known as "Calvinism," and not even most Christians are Calvinists: secular conservatives are certainly not. And the idea of that the market has an "Invisible Hand" is a weird one from Adam Smith. A person could easily be a conservative while believing in none of these things at all. That's what I mean about "herding cats."

These handy little myths about how we got where we are today are a universal part of human belief formation and it is a mistake to suppose yourself imune from them. You have used Witehead's explanation of how Christianity made science possible in a recent discsussion wiht Willy B. This is an example of such outcome driven reverse engineered historicism. Everybody is subject to that sort of thing.

Not quite.

Unlike the Left, the conservatives do not have a blithe trust in some "History" to get things right. Things don't "age like fine wine." Rather, conservatives tend to believe that things have to be managed, and managed deliberately, cautiously and progressively, rather than radically and violently overthrown. The tendency among conservatives is also to point to the failures of history, not just the successes, and to point out that radical, violent change (think the French Revolution, for example) rarely turns out well, because people are fallible, foolish and flawed on many occasions. And this is why conservatism also places such emphasis on things like rights, constitutions, checks-and-balances, logic, rationality, scientific testing, historical knowledge, plain language, and so forth...these are assumed by conservatives to offer some bulwark against foolish, radical impulses that are so prevalent in mankind and so evident in history. (You'll also note that these same things -- rights, constitutions, checks-and-balances, logic, rationality, scientific testing, historical knowledge, plain language -- are all under vigorous seige by the Left today, which proclaims them the false tools of the "oppressors," and instructs us to be very ready to dismiss them all).

rights, constitutions, checks-and-balances ... those were radical ideas when created,

Yes, they were. And I have pointed out, to Gary in particular, that the terms "right" and "left" politically are not the same as during the monarchist era. They've moved considerably. Nowadays, "Left" means Socialistic, and "right" means a huge spectrum running from the center of what used to be called "liberalism" (i.e. classical liberalism) all the way to radical nationalism and such, and catching up everything in between.

Cats again.

I was talking about radicals. I do not see any reason to conflate that with "the left", these are not coextensive concepts.

More latterly though, I would agree that modern Conservatives would be expected to have the highest regard for institutions that check the power of the excutive and so on.

Well, they're not keen on institutions, and tend to have less belief in the intrinsic goodness of government than the Left does, for sure. But I would argue this stems from them tending to have a more realistic and less naive view of basic human nature, and a stronger belief in personal liberties than in the possibilities of human social engineering.

I think you are using a more limited defintion of "institution" than I am here. I am happy with the phrase "institution of marriage" and I think most conservatives are happy with that sort of institution. As such, I do believe it is fair to say that "modern Conservatives would be expected to have the highest regard for institutions that check the power of the excutive and so on" in such terms.

But here we come to another reason that conservatism is harder to pin down than Leftism: conservatives, not being ideologically driven but rather committed (for different reasons, perhaps) to a general impulse toward the sifting of the past for wisdom and the controlled progressing of the present, do not form a single ideological group. It's not like the Left, which can trace its entire pattern of thinking back to people like Marcuse and Gramsci, or beyond them to Marx or Nietzsche, and to their founding manifestos. Being an impulse rather than an ideology, conservatives do not mass and mob with the same sort of alacrity that one finds in the Left. Even the most radical "Conservatives" only manage to form small groups, because the interests within the broad scope of conservatism are too diverse, and there is no single ideological package to pull them all together.

There are radicals who stand against Conservatism who aren't The Left, in fact they hate The Left and consider themselves Conservatives.

Of whom are you thinking?

Wizard22 considers himself a conservative, he doesn't meet any definition of conservatism I can see though. He's a Hitler apologising white-supremacist with a long list of grievances aimed at Jews. The traditions he wishes to bring back are a grab-bag of old racist and sexist tropes. He's a radical with a platform of faux-tradition to sell. His links to tradition are not about respect for the process but are actually just aimed at giving himself greater access to white women. This is far-right Neo-Traditionalism. Jacobi is the same really.

Out in the real world, I think there are many such people.

Not terrible.

Good. I'm gratified we're finding grounds for a pleasant, civil conversation on this particular issue. It's very nice.

Likewise

[Consul]

"Liberalism" has today become another tricky word, though. It used to be associated with what is now called "Classical Liberalism," emphasizing the rights and freedoms of the individual.

When someone identifies as a liberal, one always needs to ask: What kind of liberal are you?

"The conceptual morphology of liberalism:
Liberalism is an ideology that contains seven political concepts that interact at its core: liberty, rationality, individuality, progress, sociability, the general interest, and limited and accountable power."

(Freeden, Michael. Liberalism: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015. p. 15)

"The temporal layers of liberalism:

1. A theory of restrained power aimed at protecting individual rights and securing the space in which people can live without governmental oppression
2. A theory of economic interactions and free markets enabling individuals to benefit from the mutual exchange of goods.
3. A theory of human progress over time intended to enable individuals to develop their potential and capacities as long as they do not harm others.
4. A theory of mutual interdependence and state-regulated welfare that is necessary for individuals to achieve both liberty and flourishing.
5. A theory that recognizes the diversity of group life-styles and beliefs and aims for a plural and tolerant society."

(Freeden, Michael. Liberalism: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015. p. 13)

Versions of Liberalism:

1. old/classical liberalism (paleoliberalism)
2. new/modern/progressive/social liberalism (paleoneoliberalism)
3. contemporary (20th/21st-century) classical liberalism (contemporary paleoliberalism)
4. neoliberalism/neoclassical liberalism (neopaleoliberalism)
5. hyper-/ultraliberalism (anarcho-liberalism [anarcho-capitalism])

What about libertarianism? The term can be used synonymously with (collectivist or individualist) anarchism (anti-statism & anti-clericalism) or, quite broadly, with anti-authoritarianism. For example, there is a libertarian socialism; and the first person to publicly identify as a libertarian was the French anarcho-communist Joseph Déjacque (1821-1864). So libertarianism was originally a left thing. Nowadays it is commonly regarded as a right thing (even though it still needn't be regarded as such).

"[T]here is no single libertarianism. As we see it, libertarianism cannot be defined by any one set of necessary and sufficient conditions. Instead, libertarianism is best understood as a cluster concept. We see libertarianism as a distinctive combination of six key commitments: property rights, negative liberty, individualism, free markets, a skepticism of authority, and a belief in the explanatory and normative significance of spontaneous order."

(Zwolinski, Matt, and John Tomasi. The Individualists: Radicals, Reactionaries, and the Struggle for the Soul of Libertarianism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2023. p. 6)

Zwolinski&Tomasi distinguish between broad libertarianism and strict libertarianism (what Jason Brennan calls hard libertarianism), subsuming contemporary classical liberalism (paleoliberalism), neoliberalism (neopaleoliberalism), and hyperliberalism (anarcho-liberalism) under the former, and only hyperliberalism (anarcho-liberalism [anarcho-capitalism]) under the latter.
Hard/Strict libertarianism aka hyper-/ultraliberalism emerged as a radicalized form of classical liberalism, so it can be called radical/extreme classical liberalism.

Murray Rothbard, Ayn Rand, David Friedman (son of Milton Friedman), Hans-Hermann Hoppe, and Lew Rockwell are examples of
hard/strict libertarians; and Hayek, Mises, and Milton Friedman are examples of non-hard/non-strict libertarians.

The social liberals (old new liberals) aren't counted among the libertarians. Social liberalism has its (British) roots in John Mill, Thomas Green, Leonard Hobhouse, and John Hobson. For classical liberals such as Ludwig von Mises social liberalism is a moderate form of socialism; so they think it had better be called liberal socialism.