Conservatives are absolutely NOT Classical Liberals, as a Classical Liberal myself. Not by miles. It was uneasy coalition between Classical Liberals and Conservatives. Edmund Burke was against Enlightenment Values. Libertarians were suppose to be new attempt at reviving Enlightenment Values.
@Oram52 Actually, to be specific, American conservatism is classical liberalism with a dose of Protestant traditionalism as befits a country founded by religious dissenters. So in this there are differences.Yet, it cannot be doubted that American conservatives - as again distinct from my own brand of classical/Tory/Burkean conservatism - drink deeply from Adam Smith's economics and Jefferson's "that government is best which governs least." That is classical liberalism after all.To the extent that they tend to a social traditionalism that seems to contradict that liberalism it needs to be recalled that the Protestant Reformation, with its emphasis on the primacy of individual conscience. They are related insofar as the Reformation led to the Enlightenment and thence to classical liberalism.In this you do not do justice to the pedigree of your own ideas. They relate more than you seem to understand. The American brand is a peculiar admixture born of the fact that the country was born in classical liberalism and never really had a classical conservative tradition - it lacking the monarchy, peerage and established church that provided the institutional prerequisites to what became conservatism in Europe. Thus what is "conservatism" in the States has a different cultural and intellectual starting point, so to speak.CONT.
As to Burke, you are also not quite right. Burke called Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations" the "greatest treatise on ECONOMIC philosophy ever written." Emphasis added in that Burke believed that the argument against Enlightenment thinking was that it oversimplified human nature. Indeed, Burke wrote of "natural rights" not that they did not exist, but that "their abstract perfection was their practical defect." Again, Burke accepts Enlightenment thinking up to a point, but argues that it is too simple.Finally, the distinction between the classical liberal and the libertarian is that the former believed, to borrow from Jefferson, government was necessary "to secure liberty." The libertarian argued that man, left to himself, would be spontaneously social and that government is inherently tyrannical. The latter is the reductio ad absurdum of political philosophy.There is more nuance, but I have already once exceeded the 2000 character limit for replies. Suffice to say that you have a narrow point in an American context but my general observation remains correct. It is simply that space did not permit me to go into the full details on a subject about which whole books have been written.
Not really one can write 5000 words it makes no difference. You can simply condense it to values and outlook."that government is best which governs least."Exactly. How exactly is trying to use government to impose Christian Shariah governing the least exactly. America's founding fathers were Liberals no doubt that didn't make them conservative. Conservatives hated Jefferson. If Classical Liberals were "conservative" then why would Classical Liberals go through all this trouble to make sure they are not called Conservatives? Why not call yourself a conservative be simple?I don't call myself a conservative because I don't have same ideological or social outlook. I don't have obsession with morals, society in anyway must not be shaped by morals or ethics be it cultural or state. Its up to the individual. Liberalism was everyone has the right to do whatever they want to as long as they don't infringe on someone else's freedom. Classical Liberals are against collectivism in any form be it social conservatism or Marxism. Conservatives were against free trade at least in Britain and if I remember correctly it was same in America too. Conservatives wanted to impose tariffs. Its only in 80s Thatcher and Regan adopted neo-liberal economics.
Classical Liberalism is rooted in Enlightenment Values, we are NOT Conservative in anyway, otherwise we would not go into so much trouble to distinguish ourselves from Conservatives. Founding fathers were Liberals NOT conservatives.www.cato.org/.../key-concepts-libertarianismwww.goodmaninstitute.org/.../
@Oram52 You need to read more closely what I have written. Oh, and just for the record, I have a degree in political philosophy and have worked in politics for well nigh 30 years now. Just because you don't consider yourself something does not mean that you do not fit into the categories as those have been defined over time. In this I have no doubt that you are in the classical liberal tradition - though I do not know you and merely accept you at your word.However, as I have painfully tried to point out, liberalism in the American use of the term is NOT the same thing as in its historical usage. Ditto conservatism. You may very well be in the classical liberal tradition. That does not change the fact that liberalism as defined in the United States is NOT liberalism in its historical understanding nor conservatism in the United States as it has been in its historical context.To wit, American conservatism is classical liberalism with a leavening of social traditionalism. It being recognized that classical liberalism has its origins in the Protestant Reformation, with its emphasis on the primacy of conscience. Thus, because of quirks in the historical path, American conservatism is classical liberalism but with a tradition of social traditionalism rooted in Protestant Christian ethics.American liberalism is in the "radical" liberal tradition. "Radical" here not meaning as the word is used today, i. e. extremism. Rather as the ancient Greeks meant the word, meaning "to the root of."CONT.
The American/radical liberal agrees with the classical liberal/American conservative that the purpose of government is to maximize liberty. (Hence, the former's emphasis on gay marriage, for example.) However, the American/radical liberal argues that disparities of wealth and power in society make such liberty problematic and therefore they argue for popularly elected but presumably disinterested government to step in with a transformative welfare state to step in and right the imbalances and thereby maximize liberty.Please note, I describe these things. I do not advocate for any position other than the classical conservative view. Also, by the way, it is spelled "Sharia," and not "Shariah."
P. S. At the risk of seeming vain, I offer my answer to this question for further explication. My answer appears under my "Nightdrot" nom de guerre.Does the majority of GAG users identify as conservative or liberal? ↗This question is actually more appropriate to our discussion than to the question here which deals with the American parties. As noted, American parties are coalitions and not ideological monoliths. Thus, American parties tend to sweep in a rather diverse array of philosophical viewpoints. Classical liberals like you and Tory conservatives like me tending to the GOP banner without absolutely defining it.
You're just making up stuff. If you have a degree in political philosophy or science. Then that's EXACTLY what they teach. Even in America Conservatives and Classical Liberals were two completely DIFFERENT and DISTINCT entities. Completely different. Please do show me today any real Classical Liberal today calling themselves Conservative? Again tell us PRECISELY in what way conservatives and Classical liberals are one and the same? In what way are they share the same values? Limited Government is what both conservatives and Liberals share but again Christian Sharia. For Liberals government was necessary evil, government basic role was simply to protect life liberty and property. Yet you missed other aspects despite having degree in political philosophy and I have actually linked above that described enlightenment values that Liberalism is rooted in."It being recognized that classical liberalism has its origins in the Protestant Reformation" ... Classical Liberalism is rooted in Enlightenment I just mentioned above, anyone with basic understanding of CL knows that. You're trying to tie it with protestant reformation pretty much clarifies how Liberals and conservatives view things. CL has absolutely NOTHING to do with protestant reformation."emphasis on the primacy of conscience" - CL emphasizes Individual Liberty. Its the foundation Liberalism stands on."American conservatism is classical liberalism but with a tradition of social traditionalism rooted in Protestant Christian ethics." - That sentence directly will negate any concept of conservatives being same as CL. Secularism paved the way from Enlightenment Values. For CL Individual Liberty is central, and no entity be it Church, State or Culture that coerce individual against their will. Read John Stuart Mills, who called conservatives stupid.
The fact historically even in America CL and Conservatives have existed as separate entities negates that myth. CL are far more closer to Libertarians than Conservatives, otherwise we'd simply call ourselves Conservatives. CL are staunchly secular. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalismmises.org/library/what-classical-liberalismAre conservatives classical liberals?:www.reddit.com/.../www.youtube.com/watch
@Oram52 No, sorry. I can't help you in proving my credentials. Suffice to say that the Enlightenment came out of the Protestant Reformation, the Thirty Years War - a war of religion - that racked Europe stepping in between all of that. Secularism as a distinct thing came along later and was a product of the Enlightenment, not its cause.As to classical liberals who call themselves - see also American conservatives in the Republican party. Minimalist government and all the rest. Do they mesh in ever jot and tittle? Nope. Theory and practice rarely ever so perfectly match up. Yet in broad approach and outline, they are essentially the same thing.You really need to read more carefully. "American sharia" as you so objectively and scientifically phrase it, is a facet peculiar to some branches of American conservatism - particularly the American south. It is NOT, however, definitive of it. See also Kevin McCarthy on the House side. See also Ben Sasse, see also Mike Lee. The list goes on.You are dealing in stereotypes and neglecting the nuances. You also really do need to take a few courses in intellectual history at the very least. There is no connection between classical liberalism and the Protestant Reformation? Seriously?As to the rest, you do not appear to be reading what I wrote. To repeat, American conservatism is rooted in classical liberalism. THAT is the relationship. Other than to add that in Europe what is called conservatism - with its emphasis on the welfare state and all the rest - would NOT be called conservatism in the United States.CONT.
Seriously, I do not mean to offend, but you need to do a LOT of studying in history, intellectual history and vocabulary and recent usage. You do not appear to grasp the pedigree of the ideas that you are discussing.P. S. As to the video, no argument from me. Now tell me, which party in the American political system, which ideology in the American political system, is identified with individual rights and minimalist government? Name the party and the philosophy. Not perfectly or completely - life is seldom so simple - but in broad outlines.Then compare that to several extant European examples for a comparative basis.
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
Hire this man!!! (Well, except for the part about international organizations. That's a wee bit too idealistic for my tastes. Besides, no corruption at the UN, for example? Seriously?)
@nightdrot I'm not suggesting internation organisations are without corruption. Within them it is far less so that the dicto is everything for power, as in politics. And I imagine it is more easily dealt with, as for example the international anti-corruption organization whose abbriviated name I do not recall.
Well, I still like you - I'm kidding of course. However, in general, the more something is locally controlled, the more likely it is - not assured to be sure - that its flaws will be identified and regulated. Accountability is the key. Your mayor in your home town is more likely to be held to account by you than is some distant bureaucrat in some distant city in some organization of which you have never heard. I mean, let's face it, you can't even remember the name of the "international anti-corruption organization" to which you were referring. How likely is it that you will be able to hold it to account and keep it honest if you can't even name it. It being a given that even anti-corruption organizations can be corrupt and corrupted.
You speak of the Singualarity? Hans insists it's 2038 or sooner.
@October808 No no no. Robot overlords are far superior! Mainly because they will fry your ass if you say no but details details.