[DieterDT]

Hello,

I don't know whether this has already been asked, but what is the relation between libertarism, conservatism and nationalism? Are the first two cominable? I know that libertarism and nationalism are not completly different and therefore able to be combined, but in what way?

Thanks in advance!

Dieter

[SpaciousBox]

Hello Diet!... (that felt weird to type..)

Liberalism is a bit of a tag on. It's fairly easy to attached and rationalise with most forms of ideology, though very rarely is this done properly, and truth be told I can't think of many examples where it's been implemented recently. When it comes to Liberalism and Conservativism, they are only compatible in an economic sense. Social Conservative values are illiberal in nature, so they clash innately. Economically however, much of the world was Classically Liberal (what we might presently call neo-libertarianism) so it is quite possible for a Conservative ideology to be liberal in that sense. This isn't taking into account any other form of Liberalism though (Social liberalism for example, clashes with Classical Liberalism), so would be more of a weak tag-on. Our forum however does have a few Conservatives who also consider themselves to be Liberals, so maybe it's best I wait for them to chip in.

As for nationalism, there is nothing innate that makes it incompatible. Most forms of nationalism as we might see them throughout history are forced. Forced nationalism rarely comes from an ideology or party who are that interested in Liberal values, so historically the two have clashed most always. I don't see this as a compatibility error with nationalism itself however, but rather the sort's of regimes who believe it must be applied aggressively. The French revolution for example managed to mix Liberal values and nationalism. Whilst you or I might argue that their result wasn't particularly liberal, it was very much interested in progressing towards Liberalism, and as a result is commendable for the time period. Nationalism itself is merely a value of geography/culture/community - it is quite possible to be proud of your nation for it's strong values, principles, and place within the world. These could just as easily be Communistic accomplishments, as they could be Liberal, or militaristic. Nationalism is a nice tag on, though people like me will argue that true nationalism will only come about naturally. So a Liberal Nationalist would be interested in creating the grounds for which people can be proud of their nation, rather than separating it's citizens into the loyal and the traitors (fear based, basically) as happens with more authoritarian versions of so called "nationalism".

I'm starting to blab.

[houndred]

I'm a Conservative Liberal.

Essentially this continues an English tradition of personal freedom and low government interference in both taxation/ programs AND staying out of areas like Sexuality, Religion,drugs, gambling etc. It provides for free education to the end of secondary level, socialised medecine and a basic safety net. It rejects egalitarianism and group rights. It is pragmatic rather than ideological.

In the US it is the position of the Democratic freedom caucus. In the UK it has elements in the Lib-dems but mostly theConservative party (David Davies is the prime example).

[UK Sam15]

In some cases, there is a relation between conservatism and nationalism. I mean, the right wing - both center-right and far right - are notorious for the preservation of national identity and the natives of a country. I agree with some of these values, but not all of them.

The left wing is notorious for being awful at immigration control, as what happened with Labour years ago; they allowed immigrants freely into the UK, and have thus created the problems we face with it today.

[Elect G-Max]

The US and Europe have different definitions of "liberal" and "conservative". Which flavors are you talking about?

[Decky]

The definitions are not "different." One is right and one is wrong. The US needs to start using English English. If not they can start speaking a real American language like Cree or something.

[Distracted]

Social liberals exist in the UK and Europe as well, and that is more accurate to the foundations of American liberalism than just calling US liberals social democrats. Social democratic parties started from socialist movements bound in the labor movement, whereas the US didn't really have much of a labor movement to speak of until pretty late in the game.

The primary liberal party in the United States grew to be so rather than just being a regional separatist conservative party by expanding in the cities among immigrant constituencies and being based around better functioning municipalities (spearheading both the "Regular Democratic" system of political machines that ensured services to constituencies in exchange for a solid political and monetary base of organizing, and the "Reform Democratic" and "Progressive" system of cleaning up governments and promoting efficiency). That sounds more like a UK or European Liberal party than a Labour or Social Democratic party.

[Adagio]

It’s been said that a conservative knows that he’s right while a liberal knows that he could be
wrong. One takes a dogmatic approach to life; the other applies reason.

The Ideology of Conservatism

In his lecture on “The Origins of the Modern American Conservative Movement” given to the
Heritage Foundation in 2003, Dr. Lee Edwards cited Russell Kirk, author of The Conservative
Mind as providing the central idea upon which American conservatism is essentially based,
calling it ordered liberty.

Kirk described six basic “canons” or principles of conservatism:
1.A divine intent, as well as personal conscience, rules society;
2.Traditional life is filled with variety and mystery while most radical systems are characterized by a narrowing uniformity;
3.Civilized society requires orders and classes;
4.Property and freedom are inseparably connected;
5.Man must control his will and his appetite, knowing that he is governed more by emotion than by reason; and
6.Society must alter slowly.

Edwards states that “the work established convincingly that there was a tradition of American conservatism that had existed since the Founding of the Republic. With one book, Russell Kirk made conservatism intellectually acceptable in America. Indeed, he gave the conservative movement its name.

Looking back at Kirk’s claims, one can examine the statements that “A divine intent, as well as personal conscience, rules society”, and ”Civilized society requires orders and classes.”
This is Russell Kirks Theory of Rationality

The Philosophy of Liberalism

A divine intent pre-supposes not only that a divinity is at hand, but that its intent can be
determined. A personal conscience is, of course, a matter of subjectivity. A religious
view appears to be essential to conservative thought. According to Professor Gerhard
Rempel of Western New England College, “to understand the Enlightenment and the
foundations of democracy is to know that doctrinal substance was less important than
overall philosophy.” It wasn’t as much Descartes’ reason as it was Newton’s Laws. Not
abstraction and definition, but rather observation and experience. The real power of
reason lay not in the possession, but in the I of truth. The ideal for knowledge
was a further development of 17th century logic and science with an emphasis on:

•The particular rather than the general;
•Observable facts rather than principles;
•Experience rather than rational speculation.

Liberalism is more easily recognized for what it is not, than for what it is. Conservatism stands for something. It presents a positive methodology and attempts to justify itself through authoritarian means. It also follows that conservatism must always defend its position and its positive methodology as being rational. Something that it cannot do. Liberalism doesn’t actually stand for anything. It operates from a negative methodology and attempts to peel away things that obscure the truth. Since it doesn’t actually stand for something, it has nothing to defend
irrationally.

Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. points out in his essay on Liberalism in America: A Note for Europeans that “the absence of feudalism is a basic factor in accounting for the pervasive liberalism of the American political climate.” Schlesinger adds that “The absence of feudalism meant the absence of a static and confining social order, and it meant equally the absence of a profound social passion to uproot and destroy that order.” Above all, it appears to be found in the application of critical thinking.

According to Schlesinger, “The use of words like liberalism and conservatism immediately raise questions of definition”. Today, each view tends toward defining the other in the most negative of terms. American liberalism in Schlesinger’s words, feels that “realism is the source of strength, and that illusion, while productive of momentary enthusiasm, will be in the end a source of catastrophe.”

Emerson said, “the basic difference was between the party of the past and the party of the future, between the party of memory and the party of hope. It is still true that the American liberal believes that society can and should be improved, and that the way to improve it is to apply human intelligence to social and economic problems. The conservative, on the other hand, opposes efforts at purposeful change — especially when they threaten the existing distribution of power and wealth — because he believes that things are about as good as they can be reasonably
expected to be, and that any change is more likely than not to be for the worse.”

[WilrickV]

Certainly many liberals will broadly concur with Adagio in the description he provides of their beliefs. However, the emphasis on freedom from dogma and a “negative methodology” seems rather inaccurate. There is indeed a dogma to liberalism, and that is that complete rationality is possible within the context of an individual conscience. It is tempting to look at the ceaselessly rational machinations of science and to think that one could bring such mastery to society as a whole.

Unfortunately, as is plainly evident through both one’s daily observation and the news we receive from other parts of the world, no person exists who is governed entirely by reason. Consider the banking crisis of 2008. It was the result of a human rationality that denied its own constraints and sought the elimination of scarcity and the fulfillment of ambition. This was not an accident that we could have prevented if we merely had other men make the calls, upon which so much was at stake. It was the result of an attempt to rationalize the fundamentally irrational: human minds that could not objectively conceive themselves, and were tied down with their own ambitions and hopes.

I could go on, but I think my opinion is best summed up thus: the conservative says, “Man must control his will and his appetite, knowing that he is governed more by emotion than by reason.” The liberal says, “If only man followed his reason, he would know no masters. None, that is, except for his will and appetite.”

[Soixante-Retard]

4.Property and freedom are inseparably connected;

Except, that "conservative canon" is actually a "liberal canon". In fact, Ludwig von Mises considered property the cornerstone of liberalism. To wit,

The program of liberalism, therefore, if condensed into a single word, would have to read: property, that is, private ownership of the means of production (for in regard to commodities ready for consumption, private ownership is a matter of course and is not disputed even by the socialists and communists). All the other demands of liberalism result from this fundamental demand.

[Rainbow Crow]

@Adagio, it's funny how much effort liberals put into justifying their bigotry towards conservatism. Yet if you merely mention the existence of deep conservative thinkers like Charles Murray or even Haidt (whom many would consider a centrist), people who write these treatises about how conservatism is unthinkingly bad will sometimes just start screaming at you.