There is no such thing as liberalism — or progressivism, etc.
There is only conservatism. No other political philosophy actually exists; by the political analogue of Gresham’s Law, conservatism has driven every other idea out of circulation.
There might be, and should be, anti-conservatism; but it does not yet exist. What would it be? In order to answer that question, it is necessary and sufficient to characterize conservatism. Fortunately, this can be done very concisely.
Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit:
There must be in-groups whom the law protectes but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.
There is nothing more or else to it, and there never has been, in any place or time.
For millenia, conservatism had no name, because no other model of polity had ever been proposed. “The king can do no wrong.” In practice, this immunity was always extended to the king’s friends, however fungible a group they might have been. Today, we still have the king’s friends even where there is no king (dictator, etc.). Another way to look at this is that the king is a faction, rather than an individual.
As the core proposition of conservatism is indefensible if stated baldly, it has always been surrounded by an elaborate backwash of pseudophilosophy, amounting over time to millions of pages. All such is axiomatically dishonest and undeserving of serious scrutiny. Today, the accelerating de-education of humanity has reached a point where the market for pseudophilosophy is vanishing; it is, as The Kids Say These Days, tl;dr . All that is left is the core proposition itself — backed up, no longer by misdirection and sophistry, but by violence.
So this tells us what anti-conservatism must be: the proposition that the law cannot protect anyone unless it binds everyone, and cannot bind anyone unless it protects everyone.
Then the appearance arises that the task is to map “liberalism”, or “progressivism”, or “socialism”, or whateverthefuckkindofstupidnoise-ism, onto the core proposition of anti-conservatism.
No, it a’n’t. The task is to throw all those things on the exact same burn pile as the collected works of all the apologists for conservatism, and start fresh. The core proposition of anti-conservatism requires no supplementation and no exegesis. It is as sufficient as it is necessary. What you see is what you get:
The law cannot protect anyone unless it binds everyone; and it cannot bind anyone unless it protects everyone.
Conservative / Liberal divide was aimed at the fiscal side of things. Fiscally Conservative being less about spending and focus more on the national debt and liberal being more take a loan and invest the money.
Wikipedia told me how wrong I was just now and it’s more aimed towards maintaining the status quo in relation to a certain period in time. In Western democracies often means protecting organised religion, nuclear family, property rights, rule of law etc.
So it’s more of an umbrella term for people who don’t want to change anything or even bring back some previous state.
Andrew Heywood’s book “The Conservative Mind” from 1953 denotes it as
A belief in a transcendent order, which Kirk described variously as based in tradition, divine revelation, or natural law;
An affection for the “variety and mystery” of human existence;
A conviction that society requires orders and classes that emphasize natural distinctions;
A belief that property and freedom are closely linked;
A faith in custom, convention, and prescription, and a recognition that innovation must be tied to existing traditions and customs, which entails a respect for the political value of prudence
With all that said it’s a pretty garbage political philosophy and pretty regressive.
it’s a pretty garbage political philosophy and pretty regressive.
In my opinion, Wilhoit boiled away the justification of authoritarians of any ilk and refined their ethos in the following 3 sentences:
For millenia, conservatism had no name, because no other model of polity had ever been proposed. “The king can do no wrong.” In practice, this immunity was always extended to the king’s friends, however fungible a group they might have been.
“I’m/We’re in charge. Forever. I/We don’t need a reason. You also have to like it too, or else I’ll/we’ll kill you.”
From Stalin, to Mao, to Hitler, to Putin, to Xi Jingping, to Trump, to <insertDouchebagBulliesHere>, it’s the same rule. “We run shit because fuck you.”
I won’t pretend to know the proper response to that, but the most satisfying one to me is, “Go fuck yourself forever!”.
I do see the appeal of conservatism in so far as valuing stability more than “rocking the boat.” I’ve also come to realise that traditions could bind people. I think the problem of liberalism is the value on individualism, which is something that liberals fail to recognise as the blindspot that led to the rise of fascism. The liberal “going your own way” and “think for yourself” attitude that permeated onto the global culture for decades, led to alienation and loneliness epidemic. This loneliness and vulnerability is exploited by the far right. The far right offered a community and a sense of belonging, albeit in toxic dark ways. That’s not to say that the far right has monopoly on group cohesion, the far left especially communists and anarchists offer group membership, but at the moment, the fascist far right claim the group refuge for those who aren’t maverick inclined, so to speak. At least some on the left recognise this failure, and started to also offer a sense of group membership and camaraderie.
Conservative / Liberal divide was aimed at the fiscal side of things. Fiscally Conservative being less about spending and focus more on the national debt and liberal being more take a loan and invest the money.
Wikipedia told me how wrong I was just now and it’s more aimed towards maintaining the status quo in relation to a certain period in time. In Western democracies often means protecting organised religion, nuclear family, property rights, rule of law etc.
So it’s more of an umbrella term for people who don’t want to change anything or even bring back some previous state.
Andrew Heywood’s book “The Conservative Mind” from 1953 denotes it as
A belief in a transcendent order, which Kirk described variously as based in tradition, divine revelation, or natural law;
An affection for the “variety and mystery” of human existence;
A conviction that society requires orders and classes that emphasize natural distinctions;
A belief that property and freedom are closely linked;
A faith in custom, convention, and prescription, and a recognition that innovation must be tied to existing traditions and customs, which entails a respect for the political value of prudence
With all that said it’s a pretty garbage political philosophy and pretty regressive.
In my opinion, Wilhoit boiled away the justification of authoritarians of any ilk and refined their ethos in the following 3 sentences:
“I’m/We’re in charge. Forever. I/We don’t need a reason. You also have to like it too, or else I’ll/we’ll kill you.”
From Stalin, to Mao, to Hitler, to Putin, to Xi Jingping, to Trump, to
<insertDouchebagBulliesHere>, it’s the same rule. “We run shit because fuck you.”I won’t pretend to know the proper response to that, but the most satisfying one to me is, “Go fuck yourself forever!”.
I do see the appeal of conservatism in so far as valuing stability more than “rocking the boat.” I’ve also come to realise that traditions could bind people. I think the problem of liberalism is the value on individualism, which is something that liberals fail to recognise as the blindspot that led to the rise of fascism. The liberal “going your own way” and “think for yourself” attitude that permeated onto the global culture for decades, led to alienation and loneliness epidemic. This loneliness and vulnerability is exploited by the far right. The far right offered a community and a sense of belonging, albeit in toxic dark ways. That’s not to say that the far right has monopoly on group cohesion, the far left especially communists and anarchists offer group membership, but at the moment, the fascist far right claim the group refuge for those who aren’t maverick inclined, so to speak. At least some on the left recognise this failure, and started to also offer a sense of group membership and camaraderie.