As I stated, liberals believe in those liberal axioms and if a person calling themself a conservative does, then they are liberal. It is that simple. There exists a spectrum in each wing, from liberal-liberal to conservative-liberal and from conservative-conservative to liberal-conservative. However, each wing is based on the same fundamental axioms.
So, your "conservatives" who are liberals, believe in the four foundational axioms are not conservatives who do not.
Interesting, there is a lot to be said for the idea of a continuum, which is essentially fusionism. The problem is, of course, that while Sir Keir Starmer and Kemi Badenoch are both liberals (one of the Lloyd George variety the other of the Manchester type), I imagine both would vehemently reject being labelled as such. Left wing critics, of course, would see both as essentially conservative, and certainly liberalism does uphold the status quo.
At least until very recently, both sides of politics were, de facto, liberal; individual liberties, free markets, free trade, equality of opportunity, fiscal prudence, the basics of Gladstonian liberalism were accepted by both major parties; meanwhile a social safety net, the core of Lloyd George liberalism was equally unchallenged. In that environment the distinction between liberal and conservative became moot, hence the left wing critique, noted above, that liberalism is effectively conservative.
Of course, ‘the end of history’ proved nothing but. We seem to be entering a new phase of history in which liberalism is, as it has been for most of its history, embattled. The rise of the 'woke' left and the reactionary right challenge liberalism in ways that were unimaginable even a decade ago*.
I’m wondering if the history of liberalism looks something like this;
Long 19th century (1789 – 1914)
Liberal vs Conservative
Short 20th century (1914 – 1991)
Liberal and conservative fusion vs collectivist ideologies (communism / fascism / Labor / socialism)
End of history / Third Way (1991 – 2001)
Liberalism (fusion) triumphant
Resumption of history (2001 -
Liberalism (fusion) vs neo-authoritarians (personalist rule [left and right] / religious fundamentalism / 'woke')
*So we have Donald Trump musing about becoming a dictator while Ibram X Kendi’s Department of Anti-racism would be able to override elected officials in pursuit of equality of outcomes, both abominations to liberal principles.
People are loose in their use of words. However, the dichotomy of liberal v conservative at the Enlightenment is fundamental as prior to that point all rule in Europe was authoritarian, conservative, and liberalism was a new worldview based on those axioms that simply didn't exist, even in early democracies based on wealth and land ownership. Democracies are not necessarily liberal.
Starmer can make any claim that he wants, but it comes down to what he actually believes. There was a "man on the street" report from Moscow during Yeltsin's reign in which the reporter was letting an old woman speak. She said that she wanted a "strong" leader like Stalin to take command and provide food and housing. A soldier broke in and apologized for her because he said "that she didn't know what she was asking for". Democracies are hard work and it is obvious that GOP voters do not want it and enough Americans are too lazy to put in the effort. So, here we are.
Sir Keir probably believes that Sir Keir should be Prime Minister.
Of course, in practice he probably is liberal, though of the social rather than economic variety. Nominally however he is a socialist, which reminds us that liberalism wasn’t the only creed to emerge from the Enlightenment, and has never been unchallenged.
The Russian woman quite possibly did know what she was asking for, I know Iraqis who are nostalgic for Saddam Hussain because, while he was in charge, the streets were safe, there was food on the table and sectarian violence suppressed. That dissidents were killed didn’t affect them.
This reminds us that liberalism isn’t just under challenge in the US, or only from the right, it’s a phenomenon across the democratic world. That isn’t surprising, if the liberal order has been good for me I’m very aware that there are many who have fallen through the cracks. If anything epitomises for me the extent to which liberalism is failing it would be seeing the Labor (i.e. social liberal) Premier of Western Australia, with his entourage, walking past a group of homeless Aboriginals, without even looking at them. The same Premier, a few weeks out from election, ordered the police to disperse encampments of homeless people that had sprung up near Perth and Fremantle railway stations, just to make sure his re-election wasn’t marred by questions as to why a State with a budget surplus couldn’t spend more on social housing.
That begs the question, if you are a homeless Aboriginal what does liberalism offer you? The chance to sleep in a homeless shelter? If you can find one. The opportunity to apply for social housing? If you are prepared to wait for several years. The chance to apply for social security? If you are literate, have internet access and documents to support your application. You would be much better off under socialism, even of the authoritarian variety, or 'One Nation' conservatives motivated by a strong sense of noblesse oblige. It’s significant that Frederich Engles preferred the neo-feudal Young Englanders to the liberals of his day*.
I’m not sure I would consider the Middle Ages ‘conservative,’ that’s applying a label that didn’t have any real meaning until the Enlightenment, the Medieval era ran according to its own rhythm, which could be very radical indeed, Norman Cohn's 'The Pursuit of the Millennium' gives an overview of Medieval radicalism. It’s noticeable that some Victorian radicals, most notably William Morris, turned to the Middle Ages for inspiration while 20th Century Communists drew on the Munster Anabaptists for inspiration.
*A fun pastime, take passages from Engles ‘The Condition of the Working Class in England’ and Disraeli’s ‘Sibyl or the Two Nations,’ the second book of the Young England trilogy and try and guess which is written by the socialist and which by the conservative.
Again, there is a spectrum of both liberal and conservative that are differentiated by those axioms. So, it shouldn't surprise you to see that libertarianism, an extreme form in that it rejects government action except in very constrained areas, such as enforcing laws, with a focus on enforcing contracts, that would not serve the homeless, regardless of identity, but a liberal conservatism would.
In fact, it was primarily libertarianism that helped destroy the American fabric that had created the middle class, through the income tax with high upper marginal rates, and in their "selfishness is a virtue" axiom argued for laissez-faire that included offshoring to low wage labor markets to provide low cost to consumers while it destroyed well paying jobs in American community.
So, I am not defending liberalism in total, I have no use for libertarianism, but only it as a whole due to its foundational axioms. And I attack conservatism because it was the original rot in this nation in that its rejection of those axioms led to slavery, Jim Crow, Segregation, ethnic cleansing and massacres of Indians, the authoritarianism that we're experiencing now, the unconstitutional SCOTUS ruling in Dobbs and Trump, etc.
We would be far better off with progressive liberalism and liberal conservatism, but we are here.
Apologies for the delay in responding to your interesting comment. Australian politics is very much a contest between ‘progressive liberalism and liberal conservatism.’
I don’t think, for example, that anyone would describe Premier Mark McGowan as libertarian, he is a member of the Australian Labor Party (ALP), those constitution states
‘The Australian Labor Party is a democratic socialist party and has the objective of the democratic socialisation of industry, production, distribution and exchange, to the extent necessary to eliminate exploitation and other anti-social features in these fields’ (https://www.alp.org.au/media/3572/alp-national-constitution-adopted-19-august-2023.pdf ).
In the Australian context almost everyone is a liberal, elections are contests between progressive liberals (the ALP) and economic liberals / liberal conservatives (The Liberals https://www.liberal.org.au/ ), the other participants, Greens, Nationals, Teals would also be liberals in that they emphasize individual outcome and equality of opportunity, albeit in a slightly more communitarian guise.
Libertarians are like communists; they exist but are pretty much shut out of the political system, which is essentially a contest between rival forms of liberalism.
Voting is compulsory which ensures a high turn out (over 90 percent) and this, in turn, pushes both sides towards the centre, punishing either if they move too far to the left and the right.
While this ensures stability and continuity it also creates a strongly majoritarian system in which the needs of disenfranchised groups can be ignored, of which homeless people are a pre-eminent example. I suspect this is why late 19th / early 20th century Australia combined liberal, or even radical, policies, for example votes for women, secret ballots, the world’s first socialist government (Queensland 1899) with genocide of Indigenous people and the White Australia Policy.
During the 1980s we had the same economic reforms you had under Regan, however they were pushed through by a federal Labor government and accompanied by socially liberal reforms, which blunted opposition from the left. However the end result was the same, a growing gap between rich and poor, industry moving overseas, a declining middle class, young people being priced out of the housing market etc*. While the Liberals criticized Labor’s social policies they also supported economic rationalism so there was no real opposition.
Hence my view that liberalism is very much to blame for our current plight, both sides are liberals and both have championed policies that have contributed to large numbers of people sleeping in doorways.
"Hence my view that liberalism is very much to blame for our current plight, both sides are liberals and both have championed policies that have contributed to large numbers of people sleeping in doorways."
I agree 100% but with the caveat that certain conservatives fully supported the false trickle-down economic paradigm because libertarians believe that the rich are makers, more industrious, and everyone else are takers, including workers, and conservatives believe that they are more righteous and their wealth is god's reward for their righteousness.
Both libertarians, liberal extremists, and conservatives believe the same thing for different reasons, both saw taxation as theft and so worked together in the GOP to reduce taxes on the wealthy. It was the progressive income tax with its high upper marginal rates that created our extensive middle class, it ended the Gilded Age, and so it was the target of the GOP since its inception.
Understand that I am not arguing that liberals are better, only that the liberal axioms are what changed life, ended monarchism, but it also set the stage for the false belief that is libertarianism that rejects that we are social animals and so have obligations to others in preference for their "selfishness is a virtue" in which the poor are slackers and so simply must act more like the rich to change their station in life. The problem is that unless wealth is controlled it aggregates, it never trickles down as shown by EVERY civilization that ever existed. Ideology is the enemy of reality.
As I stated, liberals believe in those liberal axioms and if a person calling themself a conservative does, then they are liberal. It is that simple. There exists a spectrum in each wing, from liberal-liberal to conservative-liberal and from conservative-conservative to liberal-conservative. However, each wing is based on the same fundamental axioms.
So, your "conservatives" who are liberals, believe in the four foundational axioms are not conservatives who do not.
Interesting, there is a lot to be said for the idea of a continuum, which is essentially fusionism. The problem is, of course, that while Sir Keir Starmer and Kemi Badenoch are both liberals (one of the Lloyd George variety the other of the Manchester type), I imagine both would vehemently reject being labelled as such. Left wing critics, of course, would see both as essentially conservative, and certainly liberalism does uphold the status quo.
At least until very recently, both sides of politics were, de facto, liberal; individual liberties, free markets, free trade, equality of opportunity, fiscal prudence, the basics of Gladstonian liberalism were accepted by both major parties; meanwhile a social safety net, the core of Lloyd George liberalism was equally unchallenged. In that environment the distinction between liberal and conservative became moot, hence the left wing critique, noted above, that liberalism is effectively conservative.
Of course, ‘the end of history’ proved nothing but. We seem to be entering a new phase of history in which liberalism is, as it has been for most of its history, embattled. The rise of the 'woke' left and the reactionary right challenge liberalism in ways that were unimaginable even a decade ago*.
I’m wondering if the history of liberalism looks something like this;
Long 19th century (1789 – 1914)
Liberal vs Conservative
Short 20th century (1914 – 1991)
Liberal and conservative fusion vs collectivist ideologies (communism / fascism / Labor / socialism)
End of history / Third Way (1991 – 2001)
Liberalism (fusion) triumphant
Resumption of history (2001 -
Liberalism (fusion) vs neo-authoritarians (personalist rule [left and right] / religious fundamentalism / 'woke')
*So we have Donald Trump musing about becoming a dictator while Ibram X Kendi’s Department of Anti-racism would be able to override elected officials in pursuit of equality of outcomes, both abominations to liberal principles.
People are loose in their use of words. However, the dichotomy of liberal v conservative at the Enlightenment is fundamental as prior to that point all rule in Europe was authoritarian, conservative, and liberalism was a new worldview based on those axioms that simply didn't exist, even in early democracies based on wealth and land ownership. Democracies are not necessarily liberal.
Starmer can make any claim that he wants, but it comes down to what he actually believes. There was a "man on the street" report from Moscow during Yeltsin's reign in which the reporter was letting an old woman speak. She said that she wanted a "strong" leader like Stalin to take command and provide food and housing. A soldier broke in and apologized for her because he said "that she didn't know what she was asking for". Democracies are hard work and it is obvious that GOP voters do not want it and enough Americans are too lazy to put in the effort. So, here we are.
Sir Keir probably believes that Sir Keir should be Prime Minister.
Of course, in practice he probably is liberal, though of the social rather than economic variety. Nominally however he is a socialist, which reminds us that liberalism wasn’t the only creed to emerge from the Enlightenment, and has never been unchallenged.
The Russian woman quite possibly did know what she was asking for, I know Iraqis who are nostalgic for Saddam Hussain because, while he was in charge, the streets were safe, there was food on the table and sectarian violence suppressed. That dissidents were killed didn’t affect them.
This reminds us that liberalism isn’t just under challenge in the US, or only from the right, it’s a phenomenon across the democratic world. That isn’t surprising, if the liberal order has been good for me I’m very aware that there are many who have fallen through the cracks. If anything epitomises for me the extent to which liberalism is failing it would be seeing the Labor (i.e. social liberal) Premier of Western Australia, with his entourage, walking past a group of homeless Aboriginals, without even looking at them. The same Premier, a few weeks out from election, ordered the police to disperse encampments of homeless people that had sprung up near Perth and Fremantle railway stations, just to make sure his re-election wasn’t marred by questions as to why a State with a budget surplus couldn’t spend more on social housing.
That begs the question, if you are a homeless Aboriginal what does liberalism offer you? The chance to sleep in a homeless shelter? If you can find one. The opportunity to apply for social housing? If you are prepared to wait for several years. The chance to apply for social security? If you are literate, have internet access and documents to support your application. You would be much better off under socialism, even of the authoritarian variety, or 'One Nation' conservatives motivated by a strong sense of noblesse oblige. It’s significant that Frederich Engles preferred the neo-feudal Young Englanders to the liberals of his day*.
I’m not sure I would consider the Middle Ages ‘conservative,’ that’s applying a label that didn’t have any real meaning until the Enlightenment, the Medieval era ran according to its own rhythm, which could be very radical indeed, Norman Cohn's 'The Pursuit of the Millennium' gives an overview of Medieval radicalism. It’s noticeable that some Victorian radicals, most notably William Morris, turned to the Middle Ages for inspiration while 20th Century Communists drew on the Munster Anabaptists for inspiration.
*A fun pastime, take passages from Engles ‘The Condition of the Working Class in England’ and Disraeli’s ‘Sibyl or the Two Nations,’ the second book of the Young England trilogy and try and guess which is written by the socialist and which by the conservative.
Again, there is a spectrum of both liberal and conservative that are differentiated by those axioms. So, it shouldn't surprise you to see that libertarianism, an extreme form in that it rejects government action except in very constrained areas, such as enforcing laws, with a focus on enforcing contracts, that would not serve the homeless, regardless of identity, but a liberal conservatism would.
In fact, it was primarily libertarianism that helped destroy the American fabric that had created the middle class, through the income tax with high upper marginal rates, and in their "selfishness is a virtue" axiom argued for laissez-faire that included offshoring to low wage labor markets to provide low cost to consumers while it destroyed well paying jobs in American community.
So, I am not defending liberalism in total, I have no use for libertarianism, but only it as a whole due to its foundational axioms. And I attack conservatism because it was the original rot in this nation in that its rejection of those axioms led to slavery, Jim Crow, Segregation, ethnic cleansing and massacres of Indians, the authoritarianism that we're experiencing now, the unconstitutional SCOTUS ruling in Dobbs and Trump, etc.
We would be far better off with progressive liberalism and liberal conservatism, but we are here.
Apologies for the delay in responding to your interesting comment. Australian politics is very much a contest between ‘progressive liberalism and liberal conservatism.’
I don’t think, for example, that anyone would describe Premier Mark McGowan as libertarian, he is a member of the Australian Labor Party (ALP), those constitution states
‘The Australian Labor Party is a democratic socialist party and has the objective of the democratic socialisation of industry, production, distribution and exchange, to the extent necessary to eliminate exploitation and other anti-social features in these fields’ (https://www.alp.org.au/media/3572/alp-national-constitution-adopted-19-august-2023.pdf ).
Of course the ‘socialist objective’ is a dead letter, the ALP is, for all intents and purposes a liberal party, which didn’t stop Mr McGowan from being ruthless towards homeless people in the lead up to the State Election (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-01-23/tent-city-shut-down-in-fremantle-by-state-government/13085620).
In the Australian context almost everyone is a liberal, elections are contests between progressive liberals (the ALP) and economic liberals / liberal conservatives (The Liberals https://www.liberal.org.au/ ), the other participants, Greens, Nationals, Teals would also be liberals in that they emphasize individual outcome and equality of opportunity, albeit in a slightly more communitarian guise.
Libertarians are like communists; they exist but are pretty much shut out of the political system, which is essentially a contest between rival forms of liberalism.
Voting is compulsory which ensures a high turn out (over 90 percent) and this, in turn, pushes both sides towards the centre, punishing either if they move too far to the left and the right.
While this ensures stability and continuity it also creates a strongly majoritarian system in which the needs of disenfranchised groups can be ignored, of which homeless people are a pre-eminent example. I suspect this is why late 19th / early 20th century Australia combined liberal, or even radical, policies, for example votes for women, secret ballots, the world’s first socialist government (Queensland 1899) with genocide of Indigenous people and the White Australia Policy.
During the 1980s we had the same economic reforms you had under Regan, however they were pushed through by a federal Labor government and accompanied by socially liberal reforms, which blunted opposition from the left. However the end result was the same, a growing gap between rich and poor, industry moving overseas, a declining middle class, young people being priced out of the housing market etc*. While the Liberals criticized Labor’s social policies they also supported economic rationalism so there was no real opposition.
Hence my view that liberalism is very much to blame for our current plight, both sides are liberals and both have championed policies that have contributed to large numbers of people sleeping in doorways.
*‘…Keating-era policy contributed in the longer term to poorer wages and conditions for workers. Labor is predictably loath to acknowledge this. Keating also underestimated the detrimental impacts of economic rationalism on other vulnerable groups in the community’ (https://theconversation.com/how-paul-keating-transformed-the-economy-and-the-nation-131562
Now my turn to apologize. You said:
"Hence my view that liberalism is very much to blame for our current plight, both sides are liberals and both have championed policies that have contributed to large numbers of people sleeping in doorways."
I agree 100% but with the caveat that certain conservatives fully supported the false trickle-down economic paradigm because libertarians believe that the rich are makers, more industrious, and everyone else are takers, including workers, and conservatives believe that they are more righteous and their wealth is god's reward for their righteousness.
Both libertarians, liberal extremists, and conservatives believe the same thing for different reasons, both saw taxation as theft and so worked together in the GOP to reduce taxes on the wealthy. It was the progressive income tax with its high upper marginal rates that created our extensive middle class, it ended the Gilded Age, and so it was the target of the GOP since its inception.
Understand that I am not arguing that liberals are better, only that the liberal axioms are what changed life, ended monarchism, but it also set the stage for the false belief that is libertarianism that rejects that we are social animals and so have obligations to others in preference for their "selfishness is a virtue" in which the poor are slackers and so simply must act more like the rich to change their station in life. The problem is that unless wealth is controlled it aggregates, it never trickles down as shown by EVERY civilization that ever existed. Ideology is the enemy of reality.