“Conservative” Is Not the Opposite of “Liberal”

[NWRatCon]

“Conservative” Is Not the Opposite of “Liberal” (Arthur Holtz, Medium).​

It drives me nuts how people in the United States use the words “liberal” and “conservative” to describe the political spectrum as if the two are complete opposites. I don’t think they are necessarily so. The proper opposite of liberal is illiberal, whereas the proper opposite of the word conservative is something along the lines of reformist.

"Conservative comes from the Latin conservare, which can be translated as “to keep intact” or “to preserve or maintain.” There’s nothing about the word conservative that implies support for markets or religion. Conservative simply means you want to conserve the way things are. Makes sense, right?

Moving on to the other piece of the puzzle, liberal refers to an adherent of liberalism, the ideology born of the Enlightenment. I won’t bore you with a long-winded history or philosophy lesson (for which I am unqualified to lecture on anyway) but here is what you need to know: Liberalism, as formulated by its originators in the 17th and 18th centuries, emphasizes the liberty of individuals.

By these definitions, liberal and conservative are not mutually exclusive. If you currently live in a liberal society — that is, one that upholds the ideals of liberalism — and you want to keep things that way, one could reasonably describe you as simultaneously liberal and conservative without any contradiction."

I completely agree with the author in this analysis. Perhaps by using these standards, we can come to a realization that there is a good deal of common ground.

"the proper opposite of a liberal is someone who rejects the tenets of liberalism. There are numerous -isms opposed to liberalism, and you’ve probably heard of most of them. To name just a few, there is monarchism, totalitarianism, fascism, socialism, communism, and so on. We can describe these philosophies or their adherents as illiberal". This is the sense in which Hungary's Orban uses the term "illiberal", as he most certainly is.

 

[trouble13]

This is why I am always careful to make it clear that I am opposed to modern progressives not liberals.

 

[Gateman_Wen]

“Conservative” Is Not the Opposite of “Liberal” (Arthur Holtz, Medium).​

It drives me nuts how people in the United States use the words “liberal” and “conservative” to describe the political spectrum as if the two are complete opposites. I don’t think they are necessarily so. The proper opposite of liberal is illiberal, whereas the proper opposite of the word conservative is something along the lines of reformist.

"Conservative comes from the Latin conservare, which can be translated as “to keep intact” or “to preserve or maintain.” There’s nothing about the word conservative that implies support for markets or religion. Conservative simply means you want to conserve the way things are. Makes sense, right?

Moving on to the other piece of the puzzle, liberal refers to an adherent of liberalism, the ideology born of the Enlightenment. I won’t bore you with a long-winded history or philosophy lesson (for which I am unqualified to lecture on anyway) but here is what you need to know: Liberalism, as formulated by its originators in the 17th and 18th centuries, emphasizes the liberty of individuals.

By these definitions, liberal and conservative are not mutually exclusive. If you currently live in a liberal society — that is, one that upholds the ideals of liberalism — and you want to keep things that way, one could reasonably describe you as simultaneously liberal and conservative without any contradiction."

I completely agree with the author in this analysis. Perhaps by using these standards, we can come to a realization that there is a good deal of common ground.

"the proper opposite of a liberal is someone who rejects the tenets of liberalism. There are numerous -isms opposed to liberalism, and you’ve probably heard of most of them. To name just a few, there is monarchism, totalitarianism, fascism, socialism, communism, and so on. We can describe these philosophies or their adherents as illiberal". This is the sense in which Hungary's Orban uses the term "illiberal", as he most certainly is.

Conservative is the opposite of sane in this day and age.

 

[Bullseye]

“Conservative” Is Not the Opposite of “Liberal” (Arthur Holtz, Medium).​

It drives me nuts how people in the United States use the words “liberal” and “conservative” to describe the political spectrum as if the two are complete opposites. I don’t think they are necessarily so. The proper opposite of liberal is illiberal, whereas the proper opposite of the word conservative is something along the lines of reformist.

"Conservative comes from the Latin conservare, which can be translated as “to keep intact” or “to preserve or maintain.” There’s nothing about the word conservative that implies support for markets or religion. Conservative simply means you want to conserve the way things are. Makes sense, right?

Moving on to the other piece of the puzzle, liberal refers to an adherent of liberalism, the ideology born of the Enlightenment. I won’t bore you with a long-winded history or philosophy lesson (for which I am unqualified to lecture on anyway) but here is what you need to know: Liberalism, as formulated by its originators in the 17th and 18th centuries, emphasizes the liberty of individuals.

By these definitions, liberal and conservative are not mutually exclusive. If you currently live in a liberal society — that is, one that upholds the ideals of liberalism — and you want to keep things that way, one could reasonably describe you as simultaneously liberal and conservative without any contradiction."

I completely agree with the author in this analysis. Perhaps by using these standards, we can come to a realization that there is a good deal of common ground.

"the proper opposite of a liberal is someone who rejects the tenets of liberalism. There are numerous -isms opposed to liberalism, and you’ve probably heard of most of them. To name just a few, there is monarchism, totalitarianism, fascism, socialism, communism, and so on. We can describe these philosophies or their adherents as illiberal". This is the sense in which Hungary's Orban uses the term "illiberal", as he most certainly is.

Sounds like a debate for the Faculty lounge, not the real world. He needs a refresher on "connotation vs denotation"

 

[trixare4kids]

This is why I am always careful to make it clear that I am opposed to modern progressives not liberals.

Same here. I prefer to call today's leftist progressives illiberal. There are very few liberals left sadly.

 

[btthegreat]

First lets figure out where on this globe we are using these terms. Are we in Europe, Britain, the Americas or sitting in good old D' Estats Unis. Then lets get a little more precise than using latin or Greek roots as our clues. The language has changed since those prefixes and suffixes starting landing on Anglo Saxon, Gaelic, or Norman French words. We've gone through Old English, Middle English, Elizabethan or Early Modern English, and Modern Standard English. These terms vary considerably and what Post modern American Liberalism of FDR and Obama has zero connection with either those philosophical roots or classical liberalism and that does not mean it's some mongrel dog to be sent to the pound. American Conservativism is does not mean what its roots or European/ British conservativism claim to be, and that does not mean its a bastard child disowned and discarded.

 

[Emily L]

I think that labels are always problematic.

While Trump was in office, I quit calling myself a "conservative" because people assumed I was pro-Trump, which I wasn't.. So, I now call myself a "traditional conservative," but even that can cause problems.

I would say it's a dilemma, but I'm not sure how to spell it.

 

[Chomsky]

“Conservative” Is Not the Opposite of “Liberal” (Arthur Holtz, Medium).​

It drives me nuts how people in the United States use the words “liberal” and “conservative” to describe the political spectrum as if the two are complete opposites. I don’t think they are necessarily so. The proper opposite of liberal is illiberal, whereas the proper opposite of the word conservative is something along the lines of reformist.

"Conservative comes from the Latin conservare, which can be translated as “to keep intact” or “to preserve or maintain.” There’s nothing about the word conservative that implies support for markets or religion. Conservative simply means you want to conserve the way things are. Makes sense, right?

Moving on to the other piece of the puzzle, liberal refers to an adherent of liberalism, the ideology born of the Enlightenment. I won’t bore you with a long-winded history or philosophy lesson (for which I am unqualified to lecture on anyway) but here is what you need to know: Liberalism, as formulated by its originators in the 17th and 18th centuries, emphasizes the liberty of individuals.

By these definitions, liberal and conservative are not mutually exclusive. If you currently live in a liberal society — that is, one that upholds the ideals of liberalism — and you want to keep things that way, one could reasonably describe you as simultaneously liberal and conservative without any contradiction."

I completely agree with the author in this analysis. Perhaps by using these standards, we can come to a realization that there is a good deal of common ground.

"the proper opposite of a liberal is someone who rejects the tenets of liberalism. There are numerous -isms opposed to liberalism, and you’ve probably heard of most of them. To name just a few, there is monarchism, totalitarianism, fascism, socialism, communism, and so on. We can describe these philosophies or their adherents as illiberal". This is the sense in which Hungary's Orban uses the term "illiberal", as he most certainly is.

Unfortunately for us and out times, but terms have been co-opted.

 

[Chomsky]

Same here. I prefer to call today's leftist progressives illiberal. There are very few liberals left sadly.

I'd argue today's Libertarians probably come the closest to 'Classical Liberals'.

 

[Chomsky]

First lets figure out where on this globe we are using these terms. Are we in Europe, Britain, the Americas or sitting in good old D' Estats Unis. Then lets get a little more precise than using latin or Greek roots as our clues. The language has changed since those prefixes and suffixes starting landing on Anglo Saxon, Gaelic, or Norman French words. We've gone through Old English, Middle English, Elizabethan or Early Modern English, and Modern Standard English. These terms vary considerably and what Post modern American Liberalism of FDR and Obama has zero connection with either those philosophical roots or classical liberalism and that does not mean it's some mongrel dog to be sent to the pound. American Conservativism is does not mean what its roots or European/ British conservativism claim to be, and that does not mean its a bastard child disowned and discarded.

All excellent points!

Though given the nature of the forum and the thread, I think it's safe to assume the geographical contest is the States, unless otherwise denoted.

 

[Grim17]

Same here. I prefer to call today's leftist progressives illiberal. There are very few liberals left sadly.

I'm with you on this. I just watched a few segments of Joe Rogan interviewing Bill Maher, two self described liberals, who basically don't understand what the hell happened to the democrats and the most prominent voices coming from the political left today.

Rogan is being roasted by the left because he espouses some opinions that don't conform to the progressive agenda, and he dares to have discussions with people the left doesn't agree with. Bill Maher is receiving the same condemnation because he openly objects to all the "woke-ness" bullshit going on, and the crazy shit the far left and democrats have been saying publicly for the last 5 years or so. They attack him over his objections to radical Islam, his objections to all the transgender and male/female lunacy taking place, his objections to left supporting indoctrination of school children, to the left's war on free speech, and their support for defunding police just to name a few.

Both of them embrace the exact same beliefs and values they did 10 years ago, which used to earn them praise and respect from democrats and the mainstream left. Not anymore... Personally I feel sorry for them, and the thousands and thousands of other liberals who are rapidly finding themselves politically homeless.

.

 

[Chomsky]

I think that labels are always problematic.

While Trump was in office, I quit calling myself a "conservative" because people assumed I was pro-Trump, which I wasn't.. So, I now call myself a "traditional conservative," but even that can cause problems.

I'm hearing 'Traditional Conservative' more & more, during these Trumpian times.

I often refer to those were labeling here, as 'Principled Conservatives', but yours might be better, as 'principled' might actually denote a subset yet again of the group you've named.

I would say it's a dilemma, but I'm not sure how to spell it.

LMAO! Alright, that was a good one!

 

[Nomad4Ever]

Same here. I prefer to call today's leftist progressives illiberal. There are very few liberals left sadly.

Not so. Most democrats and republicans fall under the very broad umbrella of Neoliberalism or Liberalism broadly. Liberalism stemmed from the enlightenment and represents a set of values such as liberal democracy and the democratic process, the idea of individual liberties, a fair and just legal process, and some amorphous concept that the government should serve the needs of the people. I can already see the replies, "HAH! Well then the DEMORATS can't be liberals because they HATE individual liberties" or "respect for democracy? Well I guess that rules out conservatives lolololol". While I would name a good number of the MAGA crown illiberal, broadly even the most extreme ends of both parties arguably fit within a liberal philosophy.

At the end of the day, that's what liberalism is. Not a set of policy positions, but a set of philosophical beliefs. People with the same philosophical framework can and do end up with VERY different policy positions. But it's the beliefs and the thought process behind those beliefs that matter.

 

[Chomsky]

I'm with you on this. I just watched a few segments of Joe Rogan interviewing Bill Maher, two self described liberals, who basically don't understand what the hell happened to the democrats and the most prominent voices coming from the political left today.

Rogan is being roasted by the left because he espouses some opinions that don't conform to the progressive agenda, and he dares to have discussions with people the left doesn't agree with. Bill Maher is receiving the same condemnation because he openly objects to all the "woke-ness" bullshit going on, and the crazy shit the far left and democrats have been saying publicly for the last 5 years or so. They attack him over his objections to radical Islam, his objections to all the transgender and male/female lunacy taking place, his objections to left supporting indoctrination of school children, to the left's war on free speech, and their support for defunding police just to name a few.

Both of them embrace the exact same beliefs and values they did 10 years ago, which used to earn them praise and respect from democrats and the mainstream left. Not anymore... Personally I feel sorry for them, and the thousands and thousands of other liberals who are rapidly finding themselves politically homeless.

I very much agree with everything you wrote, above.

Maybe it's because I've been around awhile? I dunno'! But the state of what's often labeled as Liberalism, today, has me pretty damn pissed.

The absolute hallmark of modern American Liberalism, has been free speech! So, how did 'safe spaces' & 'political correctness' become Liberal traits? It's as much a mystery to me, as to Maher & Rogan.

And guns? Liberalism is borne of freedom, i.e. individual liberty. Free to do with our bodies as we please, free to posses material possessions without government interference, free to protect ourselves in the manner we choose. Since when are Liberals against the freedom of arming ourselves as we please?

At times, it looks like the Libertarians are the only one's holding true to Liberal ideals. Which I suppose is a pure reflection on me, as I boldly sport my "Social Democrat" moniker!

 

[Chomsky]

Not so. Most democrats and republicans fall under the very broad umbrella of Neoliberalism or Liberalism broadly. Liberalism stemmed from the enlightenment and represents a set of values such as liberal democracy and the democratic process, the idea of individual liberties, a fair and just legal process, and some amorphous concept that the government should serve the needs of the people. I can already see the replies, "HAH! Well then the DEMORATS can't be liberals because they HATE individual liberties" or "respect for democracy? Well I guess that rules out conservatives lolololol". While I would name a good number of the MAGA crown illiberal, broadly even the most extreme ends of both parties arguably fit within a liberal philosophy.

The extremes have more in common, than the moderates.

Reference:

Horseshoe theory - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

At the end of the day, that's what liberalism is. Not a set of policy positions, but a set of philosophical beliefs. People with the same philosophical framework can and do end up with VERY different policy positions. But it's the beliefs and the thought process behind those beliefs that matter.

Excellent post. All of it!

 

[Nomad4Ever]

The extremes have more in common, than the moderates.

I do strongly disagree with horseshoe theory. For one, it views politics as a line generally which I think is very reductive. But more than that, the only common denominator that extremes tend to agree with is being against the current system. What this means is most extremist positions generally share many of the same criticism but have radically different solutions. More than that touching on my previous post a little bit, their underlying philosophies are usually totally dissimilar.

For example, socialists and fascists will both often be very against the banking system. If you ask a socialist why they don't like banks you're going to get a 45 minute lecture about the labor theory of value and the formal subordination of labor to capital. If you ask a fascist why they don't like banks they start screaming about the Jews and the new world order.

A less extreme example is that me, a socialist, often agrees with anarchist capitalists in my criticism of the government. This is a case where despite different underlying philosophies we agree on a problem and a solution. However, if you talk to me and then an AnCap it will become clear we arrived at the same solution for very different reasons. The underlying thought process is generally quite different.

 

[Chomsky]

I do strongly disagree with horseshoe theory. For one, it views politics as a line generally which I think is very reductive. But more than that, the only common denominator that extremes tend to agree with is being against the current system. What this means is most extremist positions generally share many of the same criticism but have radically different solutions. More than that touching on my previous post a little bit, their underlying philosophies are usually totally dissimilar.

For example, socialists and fascists will both often be very against the banking system. If you ask a socialist why they don't like banks you're going to get a 45 minute lecture about the labor theory of value and the formal subordination of labor to capital. If you ask a fascist why they don't like banks they start screaming about the Jews and the new world order.

A less extreme example is that me, a socialist, often agrees with anarchist capitalists in my criticism of the government. This is a case where despite different underlying philosophies we agree on a problem and a solution. However, if you talk to me and then an AnCap it will become clear we arrived at the same solution for very different reasons. The underlying thought process is generally quite different.

Alright, that's pretty interesting and you may be right, in that the ends may be the same, but the principles & methodology differ. I might accept that. Though I'm not sure the theory differentiates beyond the end desires.

The example I usually think of is Libertarianism vs radical Conservatism, where Libertarianism actually is Classical Liberalism, yet it is today thought of as a Right Wing feature. In fact, Radical Conservatives might have anarchistic features, sharing commonality with what is generally thought of as Liberal radicalism.

It is interesting stuff, and there is commonality to see.

BTW - I do like that you see this as more than a scalar continuum.

 

[Loulit01]

I've begun using the term "neo-conservative." The people who call themselves consrvatives today bear little resemblence to traditional conservatives. For example, Roe v. Wade was decided by a conservative Court.

Was Roe Vs. Wade Decided By a Republican Court?

The landmark case was decided by what theoretically should have been a "conservative" Supreme Court. Learn more about those behind Roe Versus Wade.

www.worldatlas.com

 

[NWRatCon]

I'd argue today's Libertarians probably come the closest to 'Classical Liberals'.

Not even close.

 

[Ginger Ale]

I'm with you on this. I just watched a few segments of Joe Rogan interviewing Bill Maher, two self described liberals, who basically don't understand what the hell happened to the democrats and the most prominent voices coming from the political left today.

Rogan is being roasted by the left because he espouses some opinions that don't conform to the progressive agenda, and he dares to have discussions with people the left doesn't agree with. Bill Maher is receiving the same condemnation because he openly objects to all the "woke-ness" bullshit going on, and the crazy shit the far left and democrats have been saying publicly for the last 5 years or so. They attack him over his objections to radical Islam, his objections to all the transgender and male/female lunacy taking place, his objections to left supporting indoctrination of school children, to the left's war on free speech, and their support for defunding police just to name a few.

Both of them embrace the exact same beliefs and values they did 10 years ago, which used to earn them praise and respect from democrats and the mainstream left. Not anymore... Personally I feel sorry for them, and the thousands and thousands of other liberals who are rapidly finding themselves politically homeless.

.

So, let me get this straight. Joe R, and Bill M, are against the public having a say, and influencing how much they profit?
Their audience shouldn't have anything to do with it?

I think when two crybabies join together against their audience because they're not into their shit anymore or find it offensive, that just means they're American, and it's a free country. Something people seem to be having a problem with lately.

In our economy, you're a kiss ass for money. If you haven't learned that from birth than there's not much I can do about it. If they don't want to do the current ass kissing, then they are FREE to not do it. But, they might lose money or they could very well profit off the controversy. You know, capitalism.

 

[NWRatCon]

Not so. Most democrats and republicans fall under the very broad umbrella of Neoliberalism or Liberalism broadly. Liberalism stemmed from the enlightenment and represents a set of values such as liberal democracy and the democratic process, the idea of individual liberties, a fair and just legal process, and some amorphous concept that the government should serve the needs of the people. I can already see the replies, "HAH! Well then the DEMORATS can't be liberals because they HATE individual liberties" or "respect for democracy? Well I guess that rules out conservatives lolololol". While I would name a good number of the MAGA crown illiberal, broadly even the most extreme ends of both parties arguably fit within a liberal philosophy.

At the end of the day, that's what liberalism is. Not a set of policy positions, but a set of philosophical beliefs. People with the same philosophical framework can and do end up with VERY different policy positions. But it's the beliefs and the thought process behind those beliefs that matter.

I believe you are the only one who has posted so far who actually understood - and responded to - the OP. There is a tendency, predominate in this thread, to respond to labels rather than concepts. That's the very condition that the author objects to in his piece.

In another thread we've had a very good discussion addressing the concept of "conservatism". In many respects this is a parallel to that discussion regarding the term "liberal". In one respect, and consistent with that thread, many who "claim" the labels don't represent the concepts.

As the author notes, and I think the crux of the piece, "liberal and conservative are not mutually exclusive. If you currently live in a liberal society — that is, one that upholds the ideals of liberalism — and you want to keep things that way, one could reasonably describe you as simultaneously liberal and conservative without any contradiction." I live in such a society.

Without violating the rules of the forum (as several posters already have), many who have adopted labels for themselves or applied them to others don't understand or adhere to the underlying philosophies. That's why highlighting the contrast of "liberal" and "illiberal" is instructive - it gets to the nub of the issue without dredging up the predictable pejorative.

Liberalism is entirely about liberty. The United States was established with that concept in mind - to "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity" - informed by the philosophers of the age. But securing those blessings can take innumerable routes.

Some see it as adopting a laissez-faire attitude in everything (a la libertarian or libertine), minimizing the scope of government, while others see that as the sine qua non of government, and its highest purpose. In general, our society has taken a middle road (albeit in fits and starts and conflict) between those positions, imposing enough government to "allow the most exercise of liberty by the most people".

In this way, for example, gun control measures and gun possession rights are not in opposition, as many presuppose. Most gun control measures are not intended to eliminate possession, but to ensure "the most exercise of liberty by the most people" while protecting the the public's liberty from misuse. This balance can be seen in many other spheres, economic and social.

 

[NWRatCon]

Not so. Most democrats and republicans fall under the very broad umbrella of Neoliberalism or Liberalism broadly. Liberalism stemmed from the enlightenment and represents a set of values such as liberal democracy and the democratic process, the idea of individual liberties, a fair and just legal process, and some amorphous concept that the government should serve the needs of the people. I can already see the replies, "HAH! Well then the DEMORATS can't be liberals because they HATE individual liberties" or "respect for democracy? Well I guess that rules out conservatives lolololol". While I would name a good number of the MAGA crown illiberal, broadly even the most extreme ends of both parties arguably fit within a liberal philosophy.

At the end of the day, that's what liberalism is. Not a set of policy positions, but a set of philosophical beliefs. People with the same philosophical framework can and do end up with VERY different policy positions. But it's the beliefs and the thought process behind those beliefs that matter.

Another tangent from your excellent post is the question of "democracy". I see democracy as a result of liberalism, not a predicate to it. As you have noted, there are many paths to securing liberty, and many government structures that can comfortably accommodate it - even at the extremes.

But, an illiberal autocrat like Viktor Orbán or a socialist like Salvador Allende or Nguyen Sinh Cung (Ho Chi Minh) can gain power by democratic election, yet rule in a manner that is decidedly not liberal. Thus the author notes "There are numerous -isms opposed to liberalism" from monarchism to communism. When a society prefers security - however extreme - over individual liberty, democracy is no panacea to illiberalism.

On the other hand, most of the "revolutions", of various colors and descriptions, over the last century - going back to Hungary in 1956 - have been in opposition to illiberalism and in favor of greater personal liberty - hence of "liberation" from oppression.

If we focus on the purpose rather than the methods, it is my belief that salutary compromises can be forged on many subjects, such as environmental protection, gun control/rights, economics, and immigration.

 

[NWRatCon]

The point of this thread is to really dig into the meaning of the terms, not as labels, but as philosophies. That's why it is in the Loft (which some may not have noticed).

Another approach, I suppose, would be to define what Liberalism is, and what are "liberal values". By doing so, perhaps we can see why "liberal" and "conservative" are not oppositional.

From Encyclopedia Britannica: "liberalism, political doctrine that takes protecting and enhancing the freedom of the individual to be the central problem of politics. Liberals typically believe that government is necessary to protect individuals from being harmed by others, but they also recognize that government itself can pose a threat to liberty. As the revolutionary American pamphleteer Thomas Paine expressed it in Common Sense (1776), government is at best “a necessary evil.” Laws, judges, and police are needed to secure the individual’s life and liberty, but their coercive power may also be turned against him. The problem, then, is to devise a system that gives government the power necessary to protect individual liberty but also prevents those who govern from abusing that power." I think that is a pretty concise encapsulation of my approach and understanding of the political aspect of the philosophy.

I see the crux of the conflict in politics as navigating that last point: "to devise a system that gives government the power necessary to protect individual liberty but also prevents those who govern from abusing that power." Both conservatives and liberals struggle with identifying the fulcrum. But, where they are aligned philosophically is seeking to secure individual liberty and prevent abuse of power. (Where they differ is defining what liberties and who's power.) Thus as both the author and Nomad noted above, they are both "liberal" philosophies - since we exist in the "liberal" sphere of the globe.

Without seeking to go beyond the topic, as many here have noted, what passes for or is labeled as "conservative" in the current vernacular is greatly at odds with the conservative philosophical tradition. (This is the crux of the David Brooks essay that formed the basis for the aforementioned conservative thread.) Some have described modern (post-Enlightenment) conservatism as "self-conscious conservatism" (or maybe less pejoratively, "self-aware"), a phrase I consider apt, in that they are aware of the basis of their conservative impulses, "the instinctive human fear of sudden change, and tendency to habitual action" that undergirds the philosophical approach, and laud it. Because the American context of politics was born of revolution on behalf of liberal ideas, the basis for American conservatism is inherently more "liberal" and dynamic than the traditional conservatism of Europe, which was largely based upon monarchism and preservation of a landed aristocracy.

Thus, we get to the contrast of "illiberal" - "opposed to liberal principles; restricting freedom of thought or behavior." Many who aspire to be "conservative" would actually be opposed to "illiberalism". They don't want to suppress free thought and expression, they want their thoughts and expressions to be as available as the opposition's, and they want their liberties to be as broad as the next guy's. That is why, in my view, those who describe themselves as "traditional" conservatives don't see themselves in the same camp as Trump and his "illiberal" adherents; why they support democratic principles and oppose many of the policies that constrain it; why they see Putin, Orbán and Xi as threats and not friends; and why they want to support American institutions and traditions and not tear them down.

 

[Nomad4Ever]

I believe you are the only one who has posted so far who actually understood - and responded to - the OP. There is a tendency, predominate in this thread, to respond to labels rather than concepts. That's the very condition that the author objects to in his piece.

Well sadly there is a huge break between the political science meaning of the word and the colloquial understanding. Understandable maybe, but the unspecific use of language in politics is a problem in general I think. I often wish we had a more standardized and accepted pool of terms to use when discussing political issues.

Virtually every descriptive word, which has a generally understood if not universally accepted meaning in political science, is warped to the point of near meaninglessness in general discourse. I myself have started several threads regarding socialism and capitalism as some personal gripes. But words like state, nation, left, the left, leftist, fascism, authoritarian, libertarian, etc practically require you to do a mini game of 20 questions with whoever you are talking with to figure out what they actually mean with the terms they are using.

As the author notes, and I think the crux of the piece, "liberal and conservative are not mutually exclusive. If you currently live in a liberal society — that is, one that upholds the ideals of liberalism — and you want to keep things that way, one could reasonably describe you as simultaneously liberal and conservative without any contradiction." I live in such a society.

I always thought of conservatism as a subset of liberalism. Liberal is probably one of the broadest political umbrella terms in existence. It seems like we generally see pretty eye to eye when it comes to how we go about the process of analyzing politics.

That's why highlighting the contrast of "liberal" and "illiberal" is instructive - it gets to the nub of the issue without dredging up the predictable pejorative.

Agreed. I think concept of "liberal values" is something many people take for granted. But there genuinely are people, some even on this forum, who reject things like democracy and favor autocrats like Orban.

We've talked about this some previously, but as a small aside I always found the philosophical roots of socialism interesting. Socialism, as the OP mentioned, is illiberal. However, when it comes to philosophical values socialists and liberals generally overlap. The biggest difference in my opinion being socialists generally don't value liberal institutions and prefer direct democracy to liberal democracy.

In this way, for example, gun control measures and gun possession rights are not in opposition, as many presuppose. Most gun control measures are not intended to eliminate possession, but to ensure "the most exercise of liberty by the most people" while protecting the the public's liberty from misuse. This balance can be seen in many other spheres, economic and social.

This is my view as well. I view most things through the lens of maximizing positive liberty. There are many cases where 'restrictions' lead to more people being able to exercise their positive liberties, like speed limits keeping the road safe enough to be usable.

 

[Nomad4Ever]

The point of this thread is to really dig into the meaning of the terms, not as labels, but as philosophies.

I think analyzing politics through philosophy is a power tool because it allows you to look outside of specific policies and see the bigger picture. I do think the underlying reasoning behind ones support or opposition to a political issue is MUCH more important than what their specific stance on a policy currently is.

For example, Le Pen supports many social programs and some fairly radical "left" economic reforms. But if you listen to her rhetoric...it is framed as preserving a future for France and French (White) children with lots of rhetoric implying immigrants are not French. A sort of...ahh...nationalist socialism if you will

Ostensibly I support those economy policies. But nowhere in my underlying reasoning for supporting them will you find "preserving the economic future for my White grandchildren from foreign globalists". It's like hearing someone supports public transportation because they think the car industry is run by Jews. There is also the inverse; people arriving at positions I think are bad through a philosophical framework I believe is good. For example, many Democrats support blanket banning assault style rifles. A positions I disagree with and certainly impractical in political terms, but despite what some on the right might believe I don't find anything particularly sinister about the logic or values that led them to those beliefs.

I like examining beliefs and running them to their logical conclusions. As we discussed in another thread, that's what worries me so much about the current trend of anti-LGBTQ+ rhetoric. I don't like the reasoning being used by those espousing those beliefs.

Some have described modern (post-Enlightenment) conservatism as "self-conscious conservatism" (or maybe less pejoratively, "self-aware"), a phrase I consider apt, in that they are aware of the basis of their conservative impulses, "the instinctive human fear of sudden change, and tendency to habitual action" that undergirds the philosophical approach, and laud it.

That's really interesting. I had never thought about how modern conservatives are proud to be cautious of change.