In selling his book “The Road to Serfdom” in the United States, economist F.A. Hayek encountered a curious state of affairs, to which he felt it necessary to refer specifically in his preface to the 1956 American edition of that book. He had written his book specifically for an English audience, and in England, the words “liberal” and “liberalism” were still used in their original meaning (which had been current in this country as well during the 19th and early 20th centuries): denoting a philosophy committed to the ideals of limited government and liberty of individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets. Hayek noted that in a curious turn of affairs, the words “liberal” and “liberalism” had come to denote very nearly the exact opposite of some of these things in the United States. Modern American liberals do not, generally speaking, oppose freedom of religion, speech, press, and assembly, however they most certainly do not stand for limited government, nor do they seem ever to argue for freer markets, but rather for more government regulation and economic controls, and show a reflexive distrust of business (especially large corporations) that is in no way mirrored by similar suspicion of government and government bureaucracies. And while modern American liberals would, no doubt, reject the notion that they stand against liberty of individuals, the degree of government regulation and economic control they espouse inevitably entails a de facto loss of some degree of individual freedom. There is simply no way to impose more regulations and controls and at the same time increase the freedom of individuals subject to such regulations and controls.
As Hayek noted, the way the terms “liberal” and “liberalism” came to be so inverted in the United States owes much to the attempt by leftists to camouflage their program of bigger government and more regulation. Very few Americans would have voluntarily supported any program that looked likely to restrict their individual freedoms – which is precisely what bigger government and more regulation inevitably does – so this program was presented as something which appeals to the classical liberal ideals of justice, freedom, and equality. It should be noted that this camouflage was not always undertaken cynically by devious politicians or would be social engineers who were trying to sneak something past American voters; many leftists manage to believe sincerely that the programs they advocate are in the interests of these ideals. (Think of the way theists manage sincerely and wholeheartedly to believe mutually contradictory ideas such as the existence of an omniscient, omnipotent, supreme being, and free will.) Yet the fact remains that increased government control can only come at the expense of individual liberty.
Classical liberals in the United States, who believe strongly in the classical liberal ideals have, unfortunately, not only allowed this change of meaning in these words to take place, but have actually facilitated the process by beginning to use the terms “liberal” and “liberalism” to describe the policies and programs favored by the left, and to use these words with a new sense of opprobrium. The consequence has been for many true liberals – liberals in the original, classical sense of the word – to identify themselves as conservatives, and to make common cause politically with actual conservatives. The classical liberal is left with hardly any other way of actively working for his ideals. But as Hayek noted, true liberalism is distinct from conservatism. Conservatism (a certain degree of which is necessary in any stable society) is not a social program. Conservatism tends to be paternalistic, nationalistic, and supportive of power, both economic and military. (Ironically, this actually puts conservatism closer in some respects to socialism, with its advocacy of a strong, centralized government, than to real, classical liberalism.) Conservatism is traditionalistic, a defender of established privilege, and has anti-intellectual and religious propensities which, generally speaking, mean it seldom has great appeal to the young, or to others who strongly believe that some changes are desirable and necessary if the world is ever to be made into a better place.
But in America today, since “progressives” of the political left, who do advocate greater government control and more regulation have co-opted the terms “liberal” and “liberalism,” and since there are only two viable political parties in the United States, those who are liberals in the classical sense are left with no place to turn to defend and to advance their own ideals but to conservatives who also oppose the left. It’s not always a comfortable fit, however. It is true that because American government and society, from the time the United States became independent, were based on the classically liberal, Enlightenment ideals of freedom and individual liberty, these classical liberal ideas have become the foundational ideals of the Establishment in America, which does make it natural for conservatives to defend them. But there are, and always were elements in American society that were not classically liberal, and conservatives defend those just as vigorously (if not more so, in some cases). Religion is a good example of this. Religion is anti-intellectual, a defender of privilege, and reliant on dogma and unquestioning obedience to authority – in almost every way opposed to classical Enlightenment Liberal thinking. It is no accident that many of the classically liberal Founding Fathers were Deists who had little reverence for traditional religious institutions or established churches. But most Americans are not Enlightenment-style moral philosophers, and religion, especially Protestant Christianity, has always been strong in America, and so it is that conservatives today in the United States, who strongly defend nearly all old, traditional, deeply established elements of American society, tend to be religious. But there is a a distinction between classical liberals, and modern, American conservatives that usually goes unrecognized. Libertarians are nearer to classical liberals, but I am not a pure libertarian either.
