F. A. Hayek
“Why I Am Not a Conservative” By Nobel laureate F. A. Hayek. “At all times sincere friends of freedom have been rare, and its triumphs have been due to minorities, that have prevailed by associating themselves with auxiliaries whose objects often differed from their own; and this association, which is always dangerous, has sometimes been disastrous, by giving to opponents just grounds of opposition.” – Lord Acton
This essay draws heavily from Nobel laureate F. A. Hayek. Conservatism proper is a legitimate, probably necessary, and certainly a widespread attitude of opposition to drastic change.
But did Hayek truly understand Conservatism? In 1955 William F. Buckley Jr. shared in The national review On Line “Our Mission Statement”….
“Let’s face it: Unlike Vienna, it seems altogether possible that did “National Review” not exist, no one would have invented it. [….] It is not that, of course; if “National Review” is superfluous, it is so for very different reasons: It stands athwart history, yelling Stop, at a time when no one is inclined to do so, or to have much patience with those who so urge it.” […] And since ideas rule the world, the ideologues, having won over the intellectual class, simply walked in and started to run things.[…] That, a thousand Liberals who read this sentiment will say with relief, is clearly not enough! It isn’t enough. But it is at this point that we steal the march. For we offer, besides ourselves, a position that has not grown old under the weight of a gigantic, parasitic bureaucracy, a position un-tempered by the doctoral dissertations of a generation of PhD’s in social architecture, un-attenuated by a thousand vulgar promises to a thousand different pressure groups, un-corroded by a cynical contempt for human freedom.” And if that is “stop” is it not wisdom?
Erwin Rommel
A few new words, a semantic redefinition, the finesse of radical progressive dogma, can point the thought process in a thousand different directions. Fear not the journey. We must be like [Outmaneuvering Rommel] Patton: [referring to Rommel's book, 'Infantry Attacks' or 'Infanterie greift an'] Rommel… you magnificent bastard, “I read your book”! And then act on it! Possibly a legend, and not fact, but still as powerful.
http://www.fahayek.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=46
“The history of the American Experiment has always been seen as a polarized conflict between opposing forces but, what America has never been good at is recognizing nuance, shades of grey, middle ground or balance. Every side wants to lay claim to the high ground and the moral upper hand in the struggle against their opposites but what none of them seem to be able to recognize is that none of them are opposites and that ‘their side’ needs the ‘other side.”
Friedrich August von Hayek was an economist and philosopher best known for his defense of classical liberalism. Friedrich August von Hayek believed in free-market capitalism against socialist economies based upon production for use and the distribution of income is based on the principle of individual merit, tested competency and ability/individual contribution, to each according to his contribution. Was Steve Jobs, Andrew Carnegie or Henry Ford unfairly compensated for their contribution to American exceptionalism, principled capitalism? Is the “Occupy” crowd opposite?
October 21, 2011. HUFFPOST BOOKS. “Steve Jobs Biography Reveals He Told Obama, ‘You’re Headed for a One-Term Presidency’” Steve met the president it is reported “When he finally relented and they met at the Westin San Francisco Airport, Jobs was characteristically blunt. He seemed to have transformed from a liberal into a conservative (and as in the Gettysburg Address [….] “The world will little note, nor long remember what (he said) here.” In moments of historical importance, there appears a crack in the façade of a magnificent liberal, Steve Jobs. Is this the miracle of pristine ideologies, here Liberalism/Conservatism, suggesting co-existence, and a counter point for Friedrich August von Hayek?
Steve Jobs Bill Gates
“After 30 years, (Bill) Gates (A Founder of Microsoft) would develop a grudging respect for Jobs (a very complex man).”He really never knew much about technology, but he had an amazing instinct for what works, (was he referring to Principled Capitalism, the antithesis of the “Occupy” target?)” he said.”
As a compliment to Reagan (sic) conservatives, Rush is an honest advocate, one must concede Rush Limbaugh’s acknowledgement of Steve Jobs,
“Would you stop talking about Apple? They’re nothing but a bunch of liberals! I don’t want to hear about Apple. Why do you talk about Jobs? […].””[..] I would have loved to have had the chance to just pick his brain and find out what it was about him. Because he wasn’t very self-revealing. I guess the most he revealed about himself was that Stanford commencement speech in 2005. It didn’t matter to me that Steve Jobs was a liberal. It disappointed me for his sake, but that is not who he was tome.[…]
Steve Jobs epitomized American exceptionalism. His life epitomized it. His philosophies epitomized American exceptionalism. The fact that he was a liberal, to me, was one of the greatest contradictions. But that is of no matter and no concern now.”
So ideologies are not intrinsically evil, we have to distort, twist and work at it to make it so. Opposites do attract, in a very productive and “loving” way. You are exposed as fair minded.
William F Buckley
Is this not Republicanism, Conservatism, well almost, maybe not for William F Buckley? “I believe in the approach advocated by the late great conservative legend William F. Buckley: Support the most conservative candidate who can win. By supporting unelectable conservative candidates in races where there are electable, albeit less conservative, candidates available, we are conceding election after election to (radical) at worst, or moderate leftist Democrats.”
How does winning the argument but losing the election advance the conservative cause? How many lament the election lost to John Fitzgerald “Jack” Kennedy, few I hope, the role of Abraham Lincoln, none I imagine, and how many lust for the day of a cloned Ronald Wilson Reagan, many I pray?
And I would be a liberal if it were not for the profound promise of Republicanism and Conservatism, void of the “corrupt establishment” infecting both!
Albert Einstein
So why do we allow failure? Simple! “Albert Einstein defined “insanity” as doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. But have some of our considerations already demonstrated that they cannot win? Draft Christopher James “Chris” Christie or Marco Antonio Rubio? Would William F. Buckley have compromised “fundamentals” for fear of losing?.
“But when economic power is centralized as an instrument of political power it creates a degree of dependence scarcely distinguishable from slavery (the “establishment” is the “patron”). It has been well said that, in a country where the sole employer is the state, opposition means death by slow starvation.” The Road to Serfdom, “Planning and Power.”
Too often, and too much is said disparaging of Liberalism, knowing not that in its pristine form, it stands shoulder to shoulder with principled Republicanism, Conservatism, Democracy and Libertarianism , well with some notable exceptions, welcomed ideologies, in their purity, within our Republic. Otherwise a reverential treatment of the “loyal opposition” is nonsense. What do they hold as sacred?
Classical liberalism is multifaceted, the philosophy committed to the ideal of limited government, a government in which anything more than minimal governmental intervention in personal liberties and the economy is generally disallowed by law.
Constitutionalism is a complex of ideas, attitudes, and patterns of behavior elaborating the principle that the authority of government derives from and is limited by a body of fundamental law.
Rule of law, decisions should be made by applying known principles or laws, a system of enforceable rules and guidelines with minimal discretion in their application.
Due process is the legal principle that the state must respect all of the legal rights that are owed to a person under the law. Due process holds the state subservient to the law of the land and thus protects individual persons from it. And liberty of individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press, and assembly (Occupy Wall Street)
Free Market Capitalism is a competitive market where prices are determined by supply and demand. An economic system in which the means of production are privately owned and operated for profit, economic profit, return-on-investment (ROI) is the return to an entrepreneur or a group of entrepreneurs, usually in competitive markets. These are markets where economic intervention and regulation by the state is limited, or should be limited, to tax collection, and enforcement of private ownership and contracts.
As has often been acknowledged by conservative writers, one of the fundamental traits of the conservative attitude is a courage to resist change, a healthy distrust of the new, based on failures in the past, as such, while the liberal position is based on sentiment, emotion, pandering and confidence, on a preparedness to let change run its course even if we cannot predict where it will lead, occasionally, history reminds us, into disaster.
Adam Smith
“The main merit of the individualism which [Adam Smith] and his contemporaries advocated is that it is a system under which bad men can do least harm.”
“The danger is not that a particular class is unfit to govern. Every class is unfit to govern. The law of liberty tends to abolish the reign of race over race, of faith over faith, of class over class.”
But the conservatives are inclined to use the powers of government to prevent change or to limit its rate to whatever appeals to the more timid mind. Is this always best? Friedrich August von Hayek offers a profound negative argument. It is hardly ever worse!
So experiment with this essay. Replace the “words” Liberal/liberalism with, Conservative/conservatism, Republican/republicanism, Independent/independentism (sic), and Libertarian/libertarianism. Is there not a certain “sameness?” That is until radicalism raises it ugly head.
Is it radicalism that supplies the wedges of dissatisfaction, the hour of our discontent, the breech of unity?
Radical liberalism moves dangerously into opposition to all forms of government, social hierarchy or authority.
The idea of radical conservatism is less easy to accept…unless one cares to embrace anarchy. “In so far as radicalism is interpreted according to its original meaning, which suggests that radicals propose a systematic replacement of institutions and practices, from the roots up, then radical conservatism is a contradiction in terms.”
Radical Republicanism cast as economic opportunists who sought to dominate America by thrusting unprincipled capitalism upon it. Is this not the mantra of the “Occupy Wall Street” movement?
Radical Independentism is the advocacy of a state of cultural, ethnic, tribal, religious, racial, governmental or gender separation from the larger group. While it often refers to full political secession separatist groups may seek nothing more than greater autonomy.
Roderick T. Long
Finally is there a radical libertarianism?” “Philosopher Roderick T. Long defines libertarianism as “any political position that advocates a radical redistribution of power from the coercive state to voluntary associations of free individuals”, whether “voluntary association” takes the form of the free market or of communal co-operatives. According to the The U.S. Libertarian party, libertarianism is the advocacy of a government that is funded voluntarily and limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence.”
Our nation recently lost Steve Jobs, a magnificent liberal. “There is a Zen lesson which balances the paradoxical idea of “if you love something, let it go…” and that is that if you want to overcome something you oppose you must embrace it for, only by accepting it can you understand it and only by understanding it can you control it.”
Will Apple, having lost Steve Jobs, mirror America, having lost Adams and Jefferson? Will that be good or bad? However, surrendering Liberty for security is an irrecoverable blunder!
“I ought to stress that there is much that the liberal might with advantage have learned from the work of some conservative thinkers. To their loving and reverential study of the value of grown institutions we owe (at least outside the field of economics) some profound insights which are real contributions to our understanding of a free society.”
John Adams
“The people have a right, an indisputable, unalienable, indefeasible, divine right to that most dreaded and envied kind of knowledge – I mean of the character and conduct of their rulers”. John Adams.
Need we revisit the charade of President William Jefferson “Bill” Clinton, why is he offended by the moniker “slick Willie”, unlike Abraham Lincoln’s solemn disposition, disheveled hair, and uneven bow tie … having achieved his goal of cutting down the insolent cherry tree without lying, he earned the moniker “Honest Abe”, again?
Posted 11/1/2008, taped 10/30/08. Charlie Rose notes we’re coming into “what may be the most historic election of our time.” He says what we know about Obama is primarily from his autobiography and 2 speeches. Rose asks esteemed journalist/opinion leader Tom Brokaw, “What do you make of Barack Obama?” Brokaw: “Barack Obama went to Harvard Law School”…Charlie Rose says, we’ve not have a real in depth discussion about foreign policy, we don’t know a lot about the universe of this thinking. Brokaw: “We don’t know a lot about Barack Obama and the universe of his thinking. Chinahas not been examined at all, which is astonishing.”…Brokaw: “I don’t know what books he’s read.”…And in the rear view mirror the landscape has changed but do we know where we are going?….
“This was the peak of political journalism in the US in 2008. They freely admit they knew nothing about Obama. They followed him for years but were not at all curious to pursue available substantive information about him for their own knowledge or to pass along to Americans in their esteemed roles.” Oh, how John Adams would have been angry, disapproved and disappointed. This was and is an obstacle as deeper knowledge of “bias” and “drive-by-media” deep-rooted ideologies emerges.
The Ten Commandments fit most pristine ideologies except atheism. The Constitution is the bedrock of peaceful coexistence that is if we ever learn not to yell “Fire” in a crowed theater.
Radicalism requires compromise on fundamentals and that cannot happen for a true Republican or Conservative, the issue of the beloved ‘Tea Party.” Are we overrun by the “mandates” of the establishment” or does “individualism still reign “king.”
Will we ever embrace the liberalism of Steve Jobs, or the rivalry of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson or must we be “enemies” rather than “friends” with a few, maybe many, moderate or extreme, opposites, some “loving” philosophical differences.
Consider the idea that there are no paradoxes, only things which we don’t understand well enough to see the logic with unifies seemingly disparate forces. “Adams and Jefferson, almost polar opposites, were both right.
Jefferson was right that we need change, ‘regular revolution’, freedom, and the supremacy of the individual over the tyranny of government… the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many; the tyranny of the majority; permanent revolution; each generation is supreme.
Adams was right that we need order and structure, stability, control, and the advancement of the greater good… the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few; majority rules; what holds today can be depended upon tomorrow.
While Friedrich August von Hayek was insightfully correct concerning his fallibility of Conservative ideology, can we agree his argument applies to all ideologies, in truth all of these ideologies have similar weaknesses, man made, some irreparable taken to extremes, such as Communism, Socialism, Marxism and Fascism. Was he remiss, if one can criticize a magnificent essay, in embracing a strategy, possibly historically proven ideologies where “principled” application provided evidence of a winning strategy…without causing irreparable, long term, social and equal rights harm, if pursued? In all too many endeavors, we are losing, until we win!
Gideon Rachman
Alas, it is not necessary or laudable to embrace the scholarly erudition of a “managed decline”, the obtuse theory of the British diplomat Gideon Rachman, in his essay, “Americamust manage its decline” rather than truncate the chaos that is resulting from the implication of the misguided theories of Cloward, Piven and Sal Alinsky. Can we not extinguish the social/financial fire at its source without demanding that we let it run its course to see who was right????…when possibly it will be too late.
As the political landscape shifts there must be no complacency. The solution to President Obama’s political fortunes, at this moment looks assailable. But this is a Golda Meir moment. Today Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, if drafted, would she reject her country if called, would sweep the table.
“I pattern my actions and life after what I want. No two people are alike. You might admire attributes in others, but use these only as a guide in improving yourself in your own unique way. I don’t go for carbon copies. Individualism is sacred!” Richard Chamberlain.
And during our sojourn in the arena of academia, wrestling with an effort to maximize wisdom from intellect, most, I pray, look for what is admirable in our Democratic, Libertarian or Independent friends. Also, maybe some equal time to “Why I Am a Conservative”, and I also understand and appreciate other points of view. Why am I not a Conservative…possibly I have not earned it yet.
“Every side wants to lay claim to the high ground and the moral upper hand in the struggle against their opposites but what none of them seem to be able to recognize is that none of them are opposites and that ‘their side’ needs the ‘other side.”America needed Jefferson and Adams to see that they were not enemies, they were partners in opposition… and, within the Constitution, a Republic was born, in jeopardy today. There still is time.
Facebook
Twitter