« Buckling Down | Main | Argh! Help! »

08 September 2005

Comments

Mrs. Peperium

I did notice that you have been drinking Lillet and Pimm's as of late. You felt like slumming a bit - very Beltwa. It's that Beltway slumming desire that gave us Bill Clinton. Perhaps you'll be the head of the Hillary '08 inniative at school.

Blimpish

"the question of if I critique liberalism in order to save it or to destroy it (I'm still in the former camp)."

"Still"? Do I sense a doubt for the future?

Mr. P.

I hate when that happens.

Misspent

Well, Blimpish, the very fact that it is still a question requires that there be doubt for the future. If there were no doubt, there would be no question. I say "still" because at this point I do not see me changing my view on this anytime soon, and doubt that there will be sufficient fodder in my program to change my mind on this.

I've been trying to come up with a word that decribes what I see as the potential solution to rampant modern progressivism and the potential failings of liberal democracy. No doubt one exists out there is the literature and that I only need moer time to find it, but I have been leaning towards paleo-liberalism. It differs from modern libertarianism in many ways and certainly differs from many classical liberal thinkers like Mill. Perhaps Tory Liberalism like that of a Disraeli? I don't know. But the usage of the phrase paleo-conservative provides us a useful distinction with the neo-conservatives, who possibly could be better called paleo-liberals. The Cardinal will probrably agree with that given his slim views of the even growing camp that is today's neo-cons.

Mrs. Peperium

Catholicism.

Misspent

I'm no Throne and Altar man.

Blimpish

Who is? Since Franco, anyway.

I don't know, myself. I find it difficult to disaggregate the liberalism of Locke from the liberalism we see today, and I think all fall prey to many of the same criticisms made over the past 100 years. I think you have to distinguish liberality, both as virtue and as instrument, from liberal ideology more generally. Conservatives can be liberal specifically, but I'm not sure we should be in general.

Your point about the neocons is well made: they are conservative liberals, but probably liberals all the same (for the most part, anyway). I'd be wary about drawing much doctrinally from Disraeli - he should be admired for his statesmanship rather than any clear doctrine he expounded, is my guess. After all, he changed radically over the course of his career.

The comments to this entry are closed.