Let me now state what seems to me the decisive objection to any conservatism which deserves to be called such. It is that by its very nature it cannot offer an alternative to the direction in which we are moving. It may succeed by its resistance to current tendencies in slowing down undesirable developments, but, since it does not indicate another direction, it cannot prevent their continuance. It has, for this reason, invariably been the fate of conservatism to be dragged along a path not of its own choosing. The tug of war between conservatives and progressives can only affect the speed, not the direction, of contemporary developments. But, though there is a need for a "brake on the vehicle of progress,"[3] I personally cannot be content with simply helping to apply the brake. What the liberal must ask, first of all, is not how fast or how far we should move, but where we should move.
And writing on conservative values:
When I say that the conservative lacks principles, I do not mean to suggest that he lacks moral conviction. The typical conservative is indeed usually a man of very strong moral convictions. What I mean is that he has no political principles which enable him to work with people whose moral values differ from his own for a political order in which both can obey their convictions. It is the recognition of such principles that permits the coexistence of different sets of values that makes it possible to build a peaceful society with a minimum of force. The acceptance of such principles means that we agree to tolerate much that we dislike. There are many values of the conservative which appeal to me more than those of the socialists; yet for a liberal the importance he personally attaches to specific goals is no sufficient justification for forcing others to serve them. I have little doubt that some of my conservative friends will be shocked by what they will regard as "concessions" to modern views that I have made in Part III of this book. But, though I may dislike some of the measures concerned as much as they do and might vote against them, I know of no general principles to which I could appeal to persuade those of a different view that those measures are not permissible in the general kind of society which we both desire. To live and work successfully with others requires more than faithfulness to one's concrete aims. It requires an intellectual commitment to a type of order in which, even on issues which to one are fundamental, others are allowed to pursue different ends.Hayek also bristled at the "liberal" and "libertarian" labels:
It is for this reason that to the liberal neither moral nor religious ideals are proper objects of coercion, while both conservatives and socialists recognize no such limits. I sometimes feel that the most conspicuous attribute of liberalism that distinguishes it as much from conservatism as from socialism is the view that moral beliefs concerning matters of conduct which do not directly interfere with the protected sphere of other persons do not justify coercion.
If liberalism still meant what it meant to an English historian who in 1827 could speak of the revolution of 1688 as "the triumph of those principles which in the language of the present day are denominated liberal or constitutional" [13] or if one could still, with Lord Acton, speak of Burke, Macaulay, and Gladstone as the three greatest liberals, or if one could still, with Harold Laske, regard Tocqueville and Lord Acton as "the essential liberals of the nineteenth century,"[14] I should indeed be only too proud to describe myself by that name. But, much as I am tempted to call their liberalism true liberalism, I must recognize that the majority of Continental liberals stood for ideas to which these men were strongly opposed...
It is thus necessary to recognize that what I have called "liberalism" has little to do with any political movement that goes under that name today...
In the United States, where it has become almost impossible to use "liberal" in the sense in which I have used it, the term "libertarian" has been used instead. It may be the answer; but for my part I find it singularly unattractive.
Yes, the essay is a gross exercise in generalization, but I love it and highly recommend a full reading. I considered ending (in poor taste) with a comical name for people today who identify with the ideals of the OLD Whig parties, but will refrain.
11 comments:
So is he avoiding a label himself by labeling all of the others?
Exactly - No wonder I like the guy so much!
As John Lennon said, "I don't believe in Beatles; I just believe in me." (Kindly disregard the remaining lyrics of the song - I'm cherry-picking to make a point.)
Both Lennon and Hayek identify an issue that resonates with me: few things get under my skin more than for someone to label me based on a cursory review of the evidence or their own preconceived notions.
Labeling anyone is more or less an exercise in futility, as any serious thinker is going to be much more nuanced in their position that the preconceptions of that label.
I chose the Hayek essay because modern conservatives so like to claim him as their own. Plus, I like Hayek's economics, history, and theory a lot, but that is for another post.
Dr. RosenRosen, I know you have a hair-trigger when it comes to others rationalizing your point of view, and I can understand the fury it produces given that you may have been in the minority position among your acquaintances throughout your educational and professional career. But rationalizing the opinions of others is just a natural part of being human, wrong as it may be.
HAIR TRIGGER? YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW ME YOU FREAKING TURD-NOZZLE.
What happened? Where am I?
Justus, as per usual, you hit the mark with your treatment of rationalizing. In fact, somewhere in my files is an old Psychology 101 paper that addresses this very issue. As I recall, it was a last-minute, poorly written, even more poorly proof-read piece on how humans use schemas as a tool to simplify and organize relationships. I think I concluded that schemas, while frequently wrong, are useful in cutting down on sensory overload.
But not to get off point - the little I've ready from Herr Hayek never led me to the conclusion that he was a conservative, liberal or other (sorry about the "other" category - just me using schemas to simplify my world). The piece you cite indicates that he shared some of the painful experiences with labels we all encounter from time to time.
And I've still got a lingering complaint with labeling. Particularly that I wasn't voted "best athlete" or "best personality" or "best looking" or "best all-around" when they did the senior superlatives in High School. Is it time to let that go yet?
And what's the euphemism for the modern-day Whigs?
Here's an oversimplification for you.
There are three types of people:
1. Those who love the labels they received in high school, and spend the rest of their lives in some pattern of nostalgia and attempted reclamation. They are the staples of every reunion.
2. Those who hated the labels they received, and make it a point to show up at the reunions to show their remade selves once they have "arrived" in life.
3. Those that look back at their labels and laugh at themselves. They will rarely if ever darken the door of a reunion.
Hayek, who is a great thinker, offers one very apt interpretation of the liberal-conservative dynamic. In his view, conservatives are holding off the inevitable advancement of the liberal/progressive agenda.
Two key events in the past 30 years demonstrate the alternative form of conservatism that puts forth ideas. First, Ronald Reagan's 1980 election gave a new chance to implement conservative ideas for foreign policy and economic policy. That is, conservatives went on the offensive and weren't simply offering "lite" versions of liberal Democratic policies. Credit also goes to Jack Kemp and others in this regard.
Second, Newt Gingrich offered a wide range of conservative-based ideas for reform in 1994 that led to 12 years of Republican control of the House of Representatives.
In recent years, the Republican Party hasn't had put forth such inventive ideas on the domestic front. The closest that we have come is conservative reinterpretation of foreign policy, particularly a view that Israel should no longer have to appease terrorists and that democratic governance is one way of tempering Middle Eastern extremism.
If you view conservatism as holding off the inevitable, then the conservative label may periodically depress you. If you view conservatism as providing you certain core principles (like individuality) from which ideas sprout (like welfare reform, like tax reform), then you may have a more optimistic embrace of the "conservative" label.
John, you no doubt know that Hayek greatly influenced Reagan and Thathcher's vision of a new conservatism. The problem with Reagan is that it is hard to separate the man from the myth, and even his two terms offer different interpretations on how (or whether) that vision was executed.
On a somewhat related note, I would be interested in your thoughts (and Jason's also) on this article: http://orgtheory.wordpress.com/2009/06/03/nixons-revenge/
Definitely, I agree that a Reagan mystique exists, so I was trying to refer to specific areas where a more active form of policies based on conservative principles were implemented.
The article was unimpressive. The author made assumptions but never clearly stated what those assumptions were. His thesis was also rather basic because the leader of any party has an influence on the next wave of a party's leaders. For instance, Clinton's influence on the Democrats was an obstacle that Barack Obama had to overcome.
Wow! Nothing like being baited on a Friday afternoon.
I'll give the link a read, though I am much less interested in Republicanism than I am in classical liberalism. I'll also do my best to avoid causing any pedantic debates about "labels" and "generalizations," except to point out that they are very different things and that there is much wisdom to be found in sound generalizations. By their nature, they have exceptions, but the good ones are no less accurate as a result.
On to more fun topics - this Hayek essay has long been a favorite of mine and is why I have often referred to myself as an "Old Whig" to interlocutors who ask about my political persuasion. The look such a comment usually gets in kind is always worth the haughtiness it conveys. ;-)
While we're on Hayek (and first principles of a sort), I highly recommend - especially nowadays in the midst of our not-so-gradual slide into collectivist servitude - "The Use of Knowledge in Society".
Have also enjoyed learning more about Albert Jay Nock of late. Here's a sampling of similar vein to the Hayek article with which Justus began this thread.
And anything by Eric Voegelin is worth a read too. Warning: he writes about fascists (MWUHAHAHAHAHAH).
Thanks JB, I'll read up on those links.
It is good to know that for our differences, we are both old whig (cough)-ers.
I have another post I want to do soon, on the areas in which I strongly advocate traditionalist conservatism.
Post a Comment