Conservatives and Classical Liberals
Andrew Norton blogs on what are the areas of common agreement between conservatives and classical liberals. A summary is:
- school choice: conservatives do not put the some normative emphasis on choice as classical liberals, but they want the right to educate their children according to their faith.
- anti-discrimination law: classical liberals, who support freedom of association and an independent civil society, think conservative groups should be able to organise themselves in ways that discriminate on the basis of sex, sexuality, lifestyle or religious beliefs. Classical liberals may think that such discrimination is obnoxious and personally have nothing to do with the institutions that practice it, but also believe that it is none of the state’s business.
- law and order: the state’s primary job is to protect its citizens and their property from violence and theft; and in high-crime times that means lots of police and full jails.
- scepticism about the state’s competence: social democrats have huge faith in the state; even when it has stuffed up for decades they still think that with more public funding or some other fix it will all come good. So while conservatives do not have the same ideological opposition to state intervention as classical liberals, they are far more open to the idea that the state’s failings are more fundamental than the size of the budget.
- scepticism about the welfare state: Conservatives and classical liberals both tend to believe that the welfare state creates and entrenches some of the problems it was set up to solve. So they tend to oppose higher welfare benefits as that will encourage people to go on to them, and tend to support compulsory activity in exchange for welfare support (though to be fair some social democrats have come around to this view as well, and some classical liberals oppose it).
Andrew also touches on areas where conservatives and “social democrats” have more in common, such as “protectin” families from the market. We see this in NZ with the ridicolous bans on shopping on Good Friday due to an alliance of union friendly MPs and religiously conservative MPs.
And of course there are also the areas where social democrats and classical liberals havign common interests – such as civil freedoms for gays.
Ultimately Andrew concludes conservatives and classical liberals should work together when they have common cause, and not be upset when they disagree on other things. I couldn’t agree more.
No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)
No tag for this post.
January 25th, 2008 at 8:31 am
Boy oh boy am I a classical liberal
I could have written that!
January 25th, 2008 at 8:36 am
I agree; and would add the caveat that it would mean that sometimes liberals would side with the left. Not likely now, but possible.
January 25th, 2008 at 8:59 am
And much else including economic management – honest money, telling the truth about Government finances, the Government living within its means and open for business. Socialists i.e. the Labour Party is skeptical about all this. They believe that the power of the State is essential to solve social problems and are skeptical of the efforts of private individuals. They are also suspicious of open and free expression and prefer free speech be moderated if it differs from their own. The Electoral Finance Act is the clearest example yet of the Labour Party’s controlling attitudes.
January 25th, 2008 at 9:01 am
Liberals..????? Pffft, I’d never use the word. Too many misunderstandings, too many misconceptions , adulterated by the left.. the word has self destructed and is meaningless. Most people calling themselves liberals are so politically mixed up they’re useless in combatting the power obsessed left.
January 25th, 2008 at 9:04 am
Do we really have to define ourselves? I mean, I consider myself a conservative, but according to that first paragraph I should be wanting to bring my children up according to my faith – that woul be hard considering I define my religion as “None of the Above” (which in my veiw includes Athiest and Agnostic)
January 25th, 2008 at 9:19 am
I have worked with people and MPs in Labour on issues where we agreed – ranging from supporting the CTU in the late 90s with their anti compulsory super campaign, to supporting prostitution law reform and civil unions legislation. And of course the multiparty youth effort on the drinking age.
Likewise I work with Family First one some issues we agree on, and I take the mickey out of them on trying to get Californication off the air (I only started watching it thanks to their campaign against it).
I somewhat agree with RB that the liberal term is not the best due to its wider connotations, but I’ve yet to find a better label than classical liberal. I’m not a conservative. I suppose some would say neo-liberal fascist warmonger
January 25th, 2008 at 9:31 am
This is a good analysis. It is hard to classify “right wing”. Are both Classical Liberals and Christian fundamentalists “right wing”?
The forces of the “left” are far less divided. It doesn’t seem that there is any “traditional” “representatives of the poor”/”workingmans” sector of the Labour Party, for example, that has any visible disagreement with the “Rainbow” takeover by the Clarkists, and their barely-disguised antagonism for traditional Christian values. This was NOT a feature of Labour in the era of Lange and earlier. Mike Moore and John Tamihere, I reckon, could even NOW get a “return to basics” “Real Labour” party well and truly back into the hunt, given the scandals and the corrupt cling-to-power-at-all-costs reputation that the Clarkists have got themselves.
January 25th, 2008 at 9:49 am
Agreed Phil — this is why I claimed a couple of days ago that Labour is not *really* socialist… more like opportunist. They must be pissing off their union based support by focusing on all these fringe issues instead of their original mission — to support the workers of NZ
January 25th, 2008 at 9:55 am
I think that there is a similar divide in the left, between more agnostic academic liberals through to the traditional religious working class.
January 25th, 2008 at 10:05 am
Grant wrote:
I’m not so sure about that, Grant, as an illiberal authoritarian is an illiberal authoritarian whether he’s picking your pocket with his left hand, or steering the banned wagon with his right. If you’ve got to slap a label on me, I’m a strict fiscal conservative, don’t believe ‘Government’ can (or even should try) legislating manners, morals and bringing about fashionable utopias; and socially, I’m personally fairly conservative, but believe MYOFB is a good rule of thumb.
January 25th, 2008 at 10:19 am
They must be pissing off their union based support by focusing on all these fringe issues instead of their original mission — to support the workers of NZ
First define “workers of NZ”. My guess is yours differs from mine….
January 25th, 2008 at 10:40 am
Its hard to be a Conservative. Trying to get out of the landing craft is a real bitch. Not only are the left up there in their pillboxes with their big calibre weaponry, over on your left flank you’ve got the annoyance of pissant Libertarians with single shot air pistols spraying .177 slugs in all directions, and a bit further around you’ve got the so called Liberals, who not only loose the occasional round in your direction, but are carrying water and ammunition to the left.
….. and then a bit further around from them, you’ve got the Classic Liberal’s, all wearing officers uniforms and shouting confusing orders to both sides whilst dropping hand grenades amongst themselves with the pins released.
Getting away from the D-day analogy, what we’re really in here is a battle of ideas, and the ideas that will win the battle are Conservative ideas. We’re the most serious opposition to the left, (its why they hate us the most) but the left have managed over the last few decades to split our forces and undermine our purpose and cripple our defences.
The primary objective has to be the defeat of the left, and it is playing into their hands if we do not make this the focus of our efforts.
The left knows that its biggest enemy is the family unit. That’s why the right needs to protect that entity above all else.
The left’s social policies are almost always aimed at the destruction of the family, and in many cases, these policies are disguised as “liberal”. They’re not liberal, they’re destructive, not only to the family but in the long term to your liberty, for capturing that precious entity is the left’s ultimate objective.
Think about that next time there’s an issue involving a so called “liberal” concept, and you can’t decide what side you’re on.
January 25th, 2008 at 10:59 am
“This is a good analysis. It is hard to classify “right wing”. Are both Classical Liberals and Christian fundamentalists “right wing”?”
And does it matter?
I agree with RB that “Liberal” is degraded currency but so is “Neo-conservative” and “Paleo-conservative”.
From the point of view of good govt. there’s only one standard description.. and that’s “Good Governance”. There’s no particular reason why a Communist or raving religious type can’t produce this GC, and in fact I suspect our poorish productivity is related to our inability to agree on basic principles.
For example, I find it instructive that the US has only made headway in Iraq when they changed from trying to run the place to protecting the community so that it had the confidence to start businesses and doing things for itself. There’s a lesson there for us.
JC
January 25th, 2008 at 11:04 am
RB, if Conservatism is about freedom as it relates to economic issues or gun ownership, why when it comes to Social issues or Religion does the desire for freedom mysteriously disappear, or is that contradiction irrelevant for a Conservative nowadays ?.
P.S. The left wing have the exact opposite problem in relation to freedom.
January 25th, 2008 at 11:08 am
Classic liberal and proud – liberal originally meaning “free from government intervention” before the term was abducted and abused by the New Left. The problem with conservatism, especially with its Christian trappings, is that it too easily slips into big government conservatism and a predilection for intrusive legislation in the private and social spheres (dressed up in doublespeak as “preservation of the family”), which is really just a different shade of authoritarianism.
January 25th, 2008 at 11:08 am
Totally agree that the various terms have unclear meanings generally. Each person can adopt stricter definitions that provide clear distinctions, but these will never be mainstream understandings.
I find the battle over the terminology tedious. It doesn’t help anything. OK, getting your terms clear is useful in a debate, but it would probably be better to just call them x, y, z. So many debates rage over ‘NO, that’s no liberal, that’s conservative, blah blah blah’. So what? It’s like arguing about the correct pronunciation of banana. Ultimately the banana is still exactly what it was.
To my thinking, even wanting to put a label around your thoughts is weak thinking. Putting yourself in some supposed army of believers seems moronic. Turning a belief into a uniform so that you know who to shoot? Wtf is that about? There are as many positions as there are people, and an infinite number besides. To want to squeeze everything you think into one uniform is simply to turn off thought and let someone else pick it all for you. I think people who like to do that are in it for the shooting, not the beliefs.
January 25th, 2008 at 11:09 am
“RB, if Conservatism is about freedom as it relates to economic issues or gun ownership, why when it comes to Social issues or Religion does the desire for freedom mysteriously disappear, or is that contradiction irrelevant for a Conservative nowadays ?.”
Hell I get sick of you ignorant of history political neophytes and your questions based on so many false premises they’re damn well incomprehensible.
January 25th, 2008 at 11:20 am
Ratty – ‘Think about that next time there’s an issue involving a so called “liberal” concept, and you can’t decide what side you’re on.’
II think the important thing is not so much that as having the freedom to decide which side you are on.
To me that freedom to decide is what irks extremists of all persuasions.
January 25th, 2008 at 11:33 am
Ive always preferred the term Freedom Fighter Its got such a nice ring about it. Sort of reminds one of the ressistance movement during WW2 and totally appropriate considering the enemy is the Socialist Labour and the Communist Greens.
KISS is the operative here Dont try and complicate it.
January 25th, 2008 at 11:36 am
RB, *applause* good post (doesn’t hurt every now and then).
January 25th, 2008 at 11:56 am
Why is everyone so worked up about the Greens when UF, Anderton (really just labour) and NZ First are the ones in government?!
January 25th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
“it too easily slips into big government conservatism and a predilection for intrusive legislation in the private and social spheres ”
A common misapprehension. Each one of us is entitled to our own moral code. Each one of us is entitled to decide what is good and what is bad (or evil, to use Mr. Farrar’s word). That we have such moral codes is what is important.
The left of course disagree. Because without morality, we become much easier to control, and much less resistant to their doctrine. Right now, the issue is not whether certain moralities are reinforced by government or not. The issue is their very existence. Conservatives attempt to retain traditional values and moralities. The left are attempting to destroy them, because they see such destruction as one of the best strategies to bring them the control they seek.
As an aside, it always amuses me to see confused liberal whining about Christians using gummint to further their own political case, or their own moral position, or whatever, yet socialists are somehow immune from similar criticism.
Socialists use gummint all the time to pursue the cause of socialism, but you never hear a whimper from brainwashed socialist bozos (like Glen) on this issue. They are so blinded by left wing/ pseudo liberal thinking patterns/ propaganda they cannot even see the similarity or make the comparison. Or even recognize the inconsistency of their position. A complete absence of the ability to think critically and logically. (Its why we need to start educating students and stop force feeding them socialist dogma.)
Here’s a question for you Glen. If a conservative gummint cannot pursue Conservatism, can a Socialist gummint pursue Socialism?
January 25th, 2008 at 12:16 pm
Dave’s a political operator who finds value in the differences between the Peoples Front for the Liberation of Judea and the Popular Liberation Front of Judea.
KISS indeed.
January 25th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
I actually agree. What you don’t specify is the relationship between morality and government. If you’re happy to live and express your morality without imposing it on others, then congratulations, you’re a classic liberal. If you seek to regulate the private behavior of others, or retain outdated legislation that regulates the private and social behavior of others, then you’re a conservative with basically the same desire for control that you accuse socialists of. You just want to control different things. You’re welcome to the bizarre and bigoted aspects of your morality, I just don’t want to see them reflected in the law.
As for the rest of your post, in your efforts to insult, you seem to have lost the plot, as usual. Socialists aren’t immune from criticism, not from me, anyway, because I’m not a socialist, not even close. I’m for the maximization of individual economic and personal liberty. Anyone who threatens either, socialist or conservative, through new legislation or retaining old legislation, is fair game. In saying that, I think conservatives (the sane ones) and classic liberals make better allies for the reasons DPF posted.
In the final analysis, I want to see a “gummint” “pursue” as little as possible. The government that governs best governs least.
January 25th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
“If you’re happy to live and express your morality without imposing it on others, then congratulations, you’re a classic liberal.”
So you’re not, because by your own expressed logic, you support the government enacting laws that reinforce the Chrsitian commandment “thou shalt not steal” and the morality that underpins that law/ commandment.
“The government that governs best governs least.”
I agree, that is why I am a Conservative, and why I do all I can to prevent the left from governing us. What good is your opposition to Conservatism if all it results in is more power to the socialists? You need to forget the confusing Libertarian doctrine and research some history. Ever read “Not Yours to Give” ???? This is Conservative thinking at its best, and the text was written long before Libertarians were even a sparkle in anyone’s eye.
http://www.house.gov/paul/nytg.htm
January 25th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
“Socialists aren’t immune from criticism, not from me, anyway, because I’m not a socialist, not even close. ”
That is not what I said. I said you criticise small government Conservatives for attempting to apply Conservative principles (just leave people alone) when in gummint, but you’re prepared to give the big government left a pass when they use government much more than any other political group to pursue their political objectives.
Socialists want to “socialize”. (using the word outside its normal context) Their whole reason for being in government is to force conformity to their religion. You give them a pass on this at the same time as you harshly criticise small government Conservatives for supporting extremely minor references to Christianity. I’m criticising your inconsistency, not your failure to criticise.
January 25th, 2008 at 7:24 pm
For pure comedy value the description of right wing that is my favourite is this one from the neo-fascist National Democrat Party (ex National Front types):
In NZ, Britain, the USA and Australia the term “Right” has been misused by journalists and even by political scientists. The “Right” stands for a return to tradition, to values such as family and nation that are beyond fleeting trends. The Free Trade doctrine arose in the 19th Century and was called in the English speaking countries Whig Liberalism. It was in opposition to the Conservative Right. Marx, father of communism, SUPPORTED Free Trade because he said it would destroy traditional nations and patriotism and lead to a world economic system. We see this happening now under what is today called “globalistaion”. Marx opposed ‘protectionist’ economic policies as “conservative”. Hence, the genuine “Right” opposes both communism and Free Trade as harmful to our traditions. Unfortunately, in the English-speaking countries the onetime conservative parties have been taken over from within by Whig Liberals; hence the need for a new party that is genuinely Conservative.
Apparently DPF is a Marxist since he likes free trade;)
January 25th, 2008 at 11:02 pm
The labels are all crap anyway. there are only those that believe in freedom and those that don’t and morality and ethics are an individual choice in the end.
January 25th, 2008 at 11:11 pm
Redbaiter:
Very good posts, excellent analysis of conservatism.
Obviously not all conservatives are Christian, but I would also point out that Christianity and Classical Liberalism actually have more in common than many would realise. Note that I cannot speak for all Christians here, but only for myself.
Christianity teaches that certain things are right and wrong. It is from the Ten Commandments (Thou Shalt Not Murder, Steal etc) that our laws were formed originally. However it does not teach that it is the government’s job to enforce religion. In fact, Christianity is very strong on the separation of Church and State – ie the State should be concerned with economic issues, common law etc. and leave religion and related issues to the Church. If the State’s role is limited in this way, the government need not be large either.
Because Christianity is a free choice, NOT something that can be forced on anyone, there will be some people who will choose to follow it and some that will not. That is guaranteed. If a Christian politician was to pass laws to force people to follow Christianity that would be completely wrong, they must have the freedom to choose. And this freedom to choose could be seen as very similar to classical liberalism.
A Christian can be a politician. And a Christian believes certain things are right and wrong. A Christian politician will therefore end up supporting legislation they believe is right, just as any politician will support legislation they agree with. This is how people work, you can’t criticise someone for voting according to their convictions.
As a Christian, I would like to see more tolerance extended towards Christian values. I would like the right to educate my children how I like, discipline them how I believe is appropriate, and teach them to know and follow God. These rights are slowly being eroded by the left as their dogma is forced through the education system and the state even legislates how I am supposed to discipline. This is not right.
Although I as a Christian believe certain things are wrong (such as homosexuality), I am happy to allow people to choose these things SO LONG as I too am able to choose to live how I feel is appropriate, and have the freedom to openly state my disapproval of certain activities. This is again classical liberalism.
But if my freedoms are being restricted, why should I at the same time support the freedom of others to be increased? This is the current situation, under the current government.
Great post DF, good topic to discuss.
January 25th, 2008 at 11:18 pm
Shit. I’m definitely not a social democrat, or conservative, or a classic liberal. Does this make me a swinging voter?
January 26th, 2008 at 5:33 am
RB, I just read that article about “Not yours to give” and it is extremely well written and thought provoking. I would highly recommend it to anyone else reading this blog.
http://www.house.gov/paul/nytg.htm
January 26th, 2008 at 7:13 am
Good link Mr Dennis, it’s all power before principle today.
January 26th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
Freedom… with personal responsibility vs authoritarianism of all shades in both the economic and social sphears.
Simple choice…..so make it.
January 28th, 2008 at 1:21 am
The only danger to the family is when we have a power imbalance.
When we have two adults sharing equal power and making the decisons in line with their individual expertise, and remembering that the children of that family are more important than the adults, then maybe the family is worth conserving.
If religion cannot work towards that, and we know it cannot because its whole belief is that women are secondary to men, then religion should be canned and the family should draw from its own belief in itself.
January 28th, 2008 at 11:03 pm
Andrew W: Thank RB for the link, I just included it again to increase the likelihood of people noticing it and reading it – it is good.
Jum:
You have a poor understanding of “Religion”, by which I expect you mainly mean Christianity. Women and men are completely equal in Christianity. They have different roles and specialities of course, which is only logical – men and women are different. But they are completely equal. Check your facts.
January 29th, 2008 at 12:40 am
Mr Dennis
So you are telling me that the man does not have the final decision in a family. ie that he alone does not have the ear of his God and passes on the message to his wife. Why then when ……… was married in a Christian church, she became Mrs (his Christian name) and surname? In other words she as a person ceased to exist; she came under his name and his jurisdiction.
Why then, and I assume that Catholicism is Christianity but with different rituals, is the Pope always a man (except for Pope Joan and that was a mistake)?
I have a very good understanding of religion, and no I actually said religion because I meant every belief that says men can be leaders but women cannot, not just Christianity.
You also need to check your facts, especially the biological ones. Men and men are different, women and women are different, men and women are different. No two people are the same; they have different strengths and different weaknesses. We can probably agree that generally women have certain strengths and generally men have certain strengths, which ties in with my ‘general’ assumptions about women’s abilities, but how much of that is due to nature and how much is due to nurture – that is the question. With my own children, I observed them being treated differently, one cradled delicately, the other tossed in the air. Pink clothes for the girl, blue clothes for the boy – funnily enough, Mr Dennis, I read recently that boy babies were once the only babies dressed in pink!
I direct you to read London Observer columnist David Aaronovitch’s article, reprinted in the Otago Daily Times Wed, 27 October 2004, which explains my view of religions better than I can.
January 29th, 2008 at 3:12 am
oh dear Jum, I pity your background. Pink clothes for the girls….Mrs (his Christain name)…FFS, the feminist days of the 70’s are long gone. Get over it, everyone else has.
It’s interesting you blame Christianity for your ills…that’s where your first problem lies. Try to see beyond your bigotry, and try to understand what you accuse before spouting your drivel.
This is the best bit though: “So you are telling me that the man does not have the final decision in a family.” Haha. Ask any man that question…you will receive a resounding “NO!”
February 2nd, 2008 at 10:33 am
Sean
Can’t Dennis answer for himself. Perhaps I need to tell you that the marriage I referred to happened around 2002.
I don’t blame any religion for my lifestyle, because thank goodness my parents sent me off to Sunday school to get the basic religious instruction and then to make up my own mind. I have always been individual in making my personal decisions unlike many ‘whatever each religion calls its followers’ people who seem to need someone else to tell them what to do.
Interestingly, the Greek church advocates people resolving their own problems, with advice from the church, if asked.
In Islam, women (and men) ARE, not just were, instructed how to dress, how to think, et cetera and in the Catholic Church, women don’t even have autonomy over their own bodies. They’re just breeding machines.
I should qualify my post in that women should have a choice in their lifestyle and be able to exercise this. They cannot do that if brought up in a particular religion that controls their choices. Also, there are many women who enjoy religion, enjoy the agenda, shall we say, of their place in life. That’s great.
No Sean, in case you haven’t noticed (possibly being a man) women are not treated as equal human beings. Until men rid themselves of the idea that women were invented just to wait upon them, to be raped, to be battered, to be murdered, to have their babies, to stay at home, cook, clean, sew and wipe men’s fevered brows, I will retain my feminist goal, which is for every woman to resist being treated as a doormat or a punching bag.
We are slowly but inexorably (hopefully) moving towards a middle ground where the extremes of men’s and women’s agendas will be refined to something both genders can accept and where men will actually take responsibility for such things as rape, (assuming they have control over their own bodies and if they don’t they should never be allowed out!) since they say they are so much stronger than women.
If we start reversing the process as Family First, Brian Tamaki’s Destiny Church and any number of media (Ian Wishart), political and religious groups are trying to do now, then we will again unleash resentment and anger from the women who are being socially engineered yet again.
February 2nd, 2008 at 10:47 am
Part 2
SEAN
It happened after the second world war, with women having proved themselves well able to work at any job for pay being shamed and marketed back into the home, it happened after the 70s equality seeking movement and it’s happening again in New Zealand, today through religious movements.
When are men going to accept that women are individuals just as they are and that when women are free to choose their lifestyle, men will be FREE to do so.
Children are more important than women or men and both genders need to work together to achieve a win-win life for girls and boys, who grow into women and men who fit together and enjoy their full potential as New Zealanders.
Susan Faludi wrote two particular books you should read – Backlash which tells about women struggling to be treated as equal human beings and the forces ranged against them to keep control. Stiffed is the book about men who are just as trapped in roles that may or may not suit them.
You lost any chance of credibility when you generalised about any man saying no about having the final decison – try looking at the domestic violence statistics. It is all about control and the means to do so.
To qualify the two books I mentioned; they were written in the 90s. Hardly a time long gone, wouldn’t you say.
February 3rd, 2008 at 6:57 pm
Sean, Dennis,
Are you there???????????????
February 4th, 2008 at 8:35 am
# Ben Wilson Says:
January 25th, 2008 at 11:08 am
Ben – that was a brilliant post – doesn’t matter what side you are on, you have made a profound comment.
Every person has a slightly different political position and therefore cannot be boxed.
I like Labour because there are sooooooooo many different shades of political opinion with a good gender and ethnic mix and they have to act as a team in order to progress, and team work produces the best results that everyone can accept.