In the West, is it conservative to defend liberalism?

[CAleftist]

The meanings of the words "conservative and "liberal" are often confused.

However, some basic things about liberalism that are essential to understanding it are:

-the right to individual liberty
-the right to private property
-a representative (liberal) democracy, or republicst

Conservatism is defined as respect for authority and traditional values and institutions.

So if the State in America and the West in general is a liberal State, than doesn't it logically follow that defending the State (the traditional institution of authority) and the values of private property and individual liberty, is both "conservative" and "liberal"?

[Misanthrope]

In America, there are two main political parties. Democrats ("Liberals") and Republicans ("conservatives"). So in short, it is not conservative to defend liberalsim. Both parties advocate capitalism, they differ on very little things. Abortion, gay rights, "universal health care" ect.

[GPDP]

Essentially, all of mainstream political ideology (i.e. bourgeois ideology) is liberal. There are what I believe to be three main branches of liberalism, at least within the United States:

Conservative liberalism, or conservatism: basically a combination of economic liberalism, deregulation, and the transfer of wealth to the capitalist class, while at once retaining and pushing for repressive, traditional social views.

Classical liberalism, or libertarianism: even more extreme economic liberalism, but coupled with a dose of social liberalism (though not often to the extent of reformist liberals)

Reformist liberalism, or liberalism as commonly understood: emphasis on regulation and limited welfare, as well as protection of civil liberties and rights.

Obviously they differ in various points, but all three are still fundamentally branches of liberalism nevertheless. They all respect the right to private property, and for the most part believe in representative democracy in varying degrees.

So yes, it is possible to be both a conservative and a liberal at the same time, because conservatism as a unique political framework outside that of liberalism largely does not exist in any appreciable sense since at least the 19th century. The only aspects of conservatism that remain to any real extent are its social views. A self-described conservative is little more than a liberal who just happens to have a hard-on for Judeo-christian morality, in other words.

This is the mistake people make when they try to place ideologies in a left-right spectrum. By and large, such a spectrum is only useful within the context of liberalism. Even a grid system like the one in the Political Compass presupposes liberal ideas ultimately. Ideologies outside the liberal framework, such as socialism and, I would argue, fascism, do not fit very well, because they presuppose and value vastly different things.

[scarletghoul]

The meanings of the words "conservative and "liberal" are often confused.

However, some basic things about liberalism that are essential to understanding it are:

-the right to individual liberty
-the right to private property
-a representative (liberal) democracy, or republicst

Conservatism is defined as respect for authority and traditional values and institutions.

So if the State in America and the West in general is a liberal State, than doesn't it logically follow that defending the State (the traditional institution of authority) and the values of private property and individual liberty, is both "conservative" and "liberal"?
Yes.

[Sosa]

Liberals and Liberalism are not the same. In the US political context, liberals mean socially liberal. You can be a conservative democrat (blue dogs) which could mean fiscal conservative and socially liberal; some republicans could fit this description too, although very rare, like Arnold Schwarzenegger.

[Revolutionair]

It depends on the definitions of the words that you use.

If you define conservative as preserving the status quo, then I would say yes.
If you define conservative as supporting the Republican party and liberal as supporting the Democrat party, then I would say yes and no. No because you support the other party, but yes on the level that the two parties balance each other. With 1 party, you would get a revolution. However by securing the existence of the other party, you make sure your party keeps on existing.

[GPDP]

To further expand on what I said about ideologies, to try to say we're on the "left" in terms of mainstream conventional ideology would basically mean that we're merely on the extreme left-wing end of liberalism. Likewise, to say fascists are on the "right" is to basically imply they are just hardcore on the right-wing, conservative end of liberalism.

As socialists, we know better than that. Because our interests and values are so far removed from those of liberalism (even its reformist elements), we stand essentially in an ideological spectrum of our own. So to defend liberalism doesn't make you a conservative. It just makes you a liberal.

[Outinleftfield]

Essentially, all of mainstream political ideology (i.e. bourgeois ideology) is liberal. There are what I believe to be three main branches of liberalism, at least within the United States:

Conservative liberalism, or conservatism: basically a combination of economic liberalism, deregulation, and the transfer of wealth to the capitalist class, while at once retaining and pushing for repressive, traditional social views.

Classical liberalism, or libertarianism: even more extreme economic liberalism, but coupled with a dose of social liberalism (though not often to the extent of reformist liberals)

Reformist liberalism, or liberalism as commonly understood: emphasis on regulation and limited welfare, as well as protection of civil liberties and rights.

Obviously they differ in various points, but all three are still fundamentally branches of liberalism nevertheless. They all respect the right to private property, and for the most part believe in representative democracy in varying degrees.

So yes, it is possible to be both a conservative and a liberal at the same time, because conservatism as a unique political framework outside that of liberalism largely does not exist in any appreciable sense since at least the 19th century. The only aspects of conservatism that remain to any real extent are its social views. A self-described conservative is little more than a liberal who just happens to have a hard-on for Judeo-christian morality, in other words.

This is the mistake people make when they try to place ideologies in a left-right spectrum. By and large, such a spectrum is only useful within the context of liberalism. Even a grid system like the one in the Political Compass presupposes liberal ideas ultimately. Ideologies outside the liberal framework, such as socialism and, I would argue, fascism, do not fit very well, because they presuppose and value vastly different things.

So the conservatives have moved on in consciousness economically from feudalism to capitalism but are still stuck with the old feudalist cultural values.

There's a reason conservative liberalism dominated at first. Culture always lags behind. It takes time for the means of production to change old ways.

Reform liberalism is largely a reaction to the demands of the working class, while still trying to entrench and maintain capitalism. It's socially liberal position comes from a more workerist cultural consciousness. It represents the part of the bourgeois that is slightly more sympathetic to the needs of the people but would never do anything to hurt their own economic position.

Classical Liberalism or libertarianism is actually more of a modern phenomenon. As the people demand liberation from alienation they challenge the state's cultural policies. By ignoring that these policies are based on bourgeois and even remnants of feudal morality and by equating all government power to socialism the rich were able to convince people upset over alienation that the solution was "laissez-faire capitalism" under the name "libertarianism".

"Libertarianism" is a bourgeois propaganda ploy. In the name of "libertarianism" most politicians have oriented themselves more towards the economic side of it while giving lip-service to social liberty like legalizing drugs. The Libertarian Party is proud of asserting itself as "the only party leading the fight against the war on drugs". But its political pressure has been used by the establishment only to economic deregulation and even then not against regulations that help the rich.

It's even gotten to the point where some people mix libertarianism and anti-immigrant activism, which was originally considered anathema to libertarianism.

[GPDP]

So the conservatives have moved on in consciousness economically from feudalism to capitalism but are still stuck with the old feudalist cultural values.

Indeed. The original conservatives were proponents of the old feudal, aristocratic/monarchist system. Over time (and after many defeats), they saw the writing on the wall and accepted liberal capitalism, but held on to their archaic views on society.


There's a reason conservative liberalism dominated at first. Culture always lags behind. It takes time for the means of production to change old ways.

Well, we have to be cautious here. While I imagine the original liberals who came to power were socially conservative in various ways, we should not confuse their conservatism with that of modern-day conservative liberals. Liberals were a step above the feudalists both socially as well as economically.


Reform liberalism is largely a reaction to the demands of the working class, while still trying to entrench and maintain capitalism. It's socially liberal position comes from a more workerist cultural consciousness. It represents the part of the bourgeois that is slightly more sympathetic to the needs of the people but would never do anything to hurt their own economic position.

Quite right. Reformist liberalism is an attempt to save capitalism both from its own chaotic machinations and the possibility of unrest among the working class. It is a somewhat "socialistic" version of liberalism, though obviously being nothing of the sort.


Classical Liberalism or libertarianism is actually more of a modern phenomenon. As the people demand liberation from alienation they challenge the state's cultural policies. By ignoring that these policies are based on bourgeois and even remnants of feudal morality and by equating all government power to socialism the rich were able to convince people upset over alienation that the solution was "laissez-faire capitalism" under the name "libertarianism".

This is also true. I suppose I am wrong to conflate the classical liberals with modern-day libertarians for this reason, as they largely split into the two camps above decades prior. They do fancy themselves a real continuation of their thought, of course.


"Libertarianism" is a bourgeois propaganda ploy. In the name of "libertarianism" most politicians have oriented themselves more towards the economic side of it while giving lip-service to social liberty like legalizing drugs. The Libertarian Party is proud of asserting itself as "the only party leading the fight against the war on drugs". But its political pressure has been used by the establishment only to economic deregulation and even then not against regulations that help the rich.

This is probably their most egregious offense, and why I usually refer to libertarians as "useful fools," at least those who are sincere about their devotion to the ideas of libertarianism, at least. Occasionally, you will hear a libertarian rail against corporations as well as the gubment, but in the end, the only angle of their ideas that will be paid any credence to will be those that help the capitalists at the expense of the workers. Think the government should slash social spending? Cool! What's that, you also think subsidies to corporations should be cut? Yeah, we'll get back to you after this commercial break... not.


It's even gotten to the point where some people mix libertarianism and anti-immigrant activism, which was originally considered anathema to libertarianism.

Hence why I said their social liberalism rarely matches that found among reformist liberals. There's a reason they say libertarians are just Republicans who smoke weed.