I'd give anything for that word back! Read Ludwig von Mises's "Liberalism" and dare to trace the etymology from his usage to the Humphrey/Dukakis wing.

Ooh, can I play too? Conservatism originally meant fiscal caution, limited consolidation of federal power, and an emphasis on individual freedom. The post modern version is more about social concepts and fighting a social war against secularism. In a classic marxist propaganda move intellectuals are recast as people to look down upon. The complexities and subtleties discussed among these elite are recast from intelligent thought to lack of moral character and relativism; the inablity to discern good from bad. Modern conservatism is failing because it clings to social traditions, unable to accept the modernization of society and the increasing complexity of social interaction brought about by expanding horizons and the inclusion of foreign social concepts. In short, classic conservatism is good, the exercise of individual freedom and fiscal caution. Modern conservatism is bad because it fears and distrusts change. Notice how often the conservative argument rests on tradition or religious belief. Notice also how often modern conservative ideals are un-conservative, removing personal liberty in favor of adherence to a traditional or religious dogma, based on everyone thinking alike, with dissenting voices drowned out by repetitive chanting of a message finely orchestrated by a conservative elite.

Sure, you can play. But you may have a tough time finding opponents around here. Berkeley Square Blog doesn't seem to attract the Burkean, Chestertonian Conservative element. I can appreciate some of it. Chesterton's "Tradition is the Democracy of the Dead" and Oakeshott's skepticism appeal to me.

Ramesh Ponnuru asks where Conservatism goes in a post WFB world and it's a good question. I did a post suggesting a realignment of disaffected Democrats and Republicans around secular, Libertarian ideals (You and me, Silence!)

The solution, as I mentioned above, is for you to give us the word "Liberal" back. Mises and modern Europeans understand this word as meaning, well, Conservative.

Then the left can be "Progressives." They like the word, it has good connotations (and it describes their tax policies pretty acutely). I get to be a Mises Liberal, you can be Progressive, and the NRO folks can be Conservative. Deal?

Fair enough, let's critique the present-day conservative ideology. (I won't call it "post-modern" because that term specifically describes the philosophy of uncertainty that has polluted the present day liberal ideology.)

Conservatism has its pollutive element too, and you identified it correctly - religious faith. But this element is of no threat to anyone so long as it remains an individual conviction. When it affects legislation, thereby becoming an imposition on all of us regardless of our rejection of the underlying faith, it is no better than the collectivism of the left.

But this element does not define the entirety of conservatism. There are two dominant elements that are most important - Opposition to fiscal socialism (reduction of taxes, reduction of spending, reduction of government regulation) and aggressive (read: military) national defense.

The national defense strategy can be traced to traditionalism, as you said, for history has shown that this approach works while the pacifist approach is suicidal.

As for combating socialism with market capitalism, tradition has less to say here. It's true that capital based economic systems have a historical basis but they have always coexisted with a religious moral code that dictated the voluntary sharing of wealth from the haves to the have nots. The historic failures of socialism have helped show the flaw in this morality. Over and over we have seen the futility of giving the unearned to the undeserving. The egalitarian society promised by advocates of this system never materialized. Instead we saw how it destroyed ambition, ability and self-esteem.

In summary, the results oriented focus of conservatism - Hard America, if you will - weeds out the failed ideas. The focus of liberalism, however, is process oriented. Ideas need not work in order to thrive here. This is why we see more and more outrageous ideas, claims and statements coming from the left. When you don't insist that all of your ideas work you soon find that none of them do so.

I am with you JK, I like your new labels. I would still end up floating about a bit, non-conformist might be my best label. This is one of the things that makes me lean left, the feeling that the right is somewhat like a fraternity, you don't have to all thing alike, but it is encouraged. Part of my point in my diatribe against social conservatism is the fallicy of labels to describe views.

JohnGalt also makes some very good points in his comment, although abortion, gay marriage, and stem cell research leap to mind as areas where religion or traditionalism do seem to be affecting public policy. I am also no socialist by any means, but I think unfettered capitalism is unacceptable as well. There has historically always been some sort of social code to help the less fortunate. True capitalism would mimic the law of the jungle repleat with monopolies, price gouging, and horrendous labor practices. Part of civilized thought is that it is no longer fair that the slow deer gets eaten. (so to speak) I notice even you JK note in your last comment on health care (Disin-freakin-genuous thread) that the government has some place in helping those at risk? Now JohnGalt is certainly correct in that many programs have proven not to work, although I would contend that there is some success rate, even if small. The change from voluntary to forced assistance and the disconnect between the provider and receiver have also introduced many problems, but it always makes me think about that famous line about democracy, it doesn't really work that well, it just happens to work better than any other method we know of. (I am sure I am paraphrasing a famous quote badly) In short I think there will always be a need and desire for some amount of socialism to tame raw capitalistism in a modern society.

Sorry -- got to rise to the defense of Capitalism -- with or without "fetters." I do prefer mine unfettered.

I reject your examples: monopolies and price gouging are nothing more than good market signals for others to enter a field. Only when they are protected by government authority (or the mob) are they dangerous. In a free market they are a signal to direct capital. Allowing workers to organize fixes horrendous labor conditions within the dynamics of a free marketplace. Were I willing to digress, I might mention some industries (say, the entire public sector) where is anti-market...but I rarely digress.

I favor a direct help for the slow deer. This keeps him from being eaten without distorting the salutary effects of free markets. Even this is scary business (I can hear brows furrowing across Berkeley Square Blogland) which needs to be administered with caution to not creating a dependant welfare class.

And: non-conformist in the Democratic Party? How many anti-abortion speakers did I see at the convention? When was Senator Lieberman's speaking spot? Stem cells? Charter Schools? Tort reform?

The GOP has embraced Ahnold, Rudy Giuliani and a host of non-mainstream thinkers on the war, abortion, stem cells, (Alan Keyes is now for reparations!) I know the diversity exists in the Democratic electorate -- but they are not invited on stage. The GOP is the big tent, my friend. I wish they would embrace the Log Cabin folks more, but I will still take our diversity any day of the week.

Dagny's philosophy lecture number 20,074:

Silence says:
"In short I think there will always be a need and desire for some amount of socialism to tame raw capitalistism in a modern society."

The problem with this is, how much socialism and who gets to decide? Noone is entitled to decide how much socialism I should slave under. Each individual MUST be free to decide for himself whether to share the fruits of his labor with others. This is, "unfettered," capitalism and it is the only way people are truly free.

Next Silence says, "..., the feeling that the right is somewhat like a fraternity, you don't have to all thing alike, but it is encouraged.

I see this exactly opposite. Those on the left encourage everyone to think alike to a much greater degree than those on the right. It is in a much more insidious fashion however. The mantra of the left is what is known as, "political correctness," and we all must follow it or we are labeled as prejudiced or intolerant. It includes such ideas as that all cultures are equal, that it is the government's job to protect us from ourselves, that ideas and people are not to be judged but only understood and accepted. The current disastrous state of our public schools is a direct consequence of this and unfortunately this is a self-perpetuating problem.

Those on the right, on the other hand, encourage everyone to think for HIMSELF. It is true that those who think correctly and consistently for themselves will often reach similar conclusions. This is not a surprise as we all live in the same reality. This is a far cry from thinking the same thing.

Finally Silence says, "Part of my point in my diatribe against social conservatism is the fallicy of labels to describe views."

This impugns the process of generalization or, "labels," as you say in this post or, "composite classification," as you said in another. Without it, however, we would not be able to think. If you could not generalize for example from one chair to another you could not comfortably walk into a room and know where to sit. A generalization is only harmful if it is mistaken AND the mistake is acted upon (i.e. putting all blacks in jail due to the criminal behavior of some). Otherwise a label is an imperative portion of thinking for oneself. The left decries the process of applying labels because if you cannot apply the label you cannot manipulate the concept sufficiently to make your own judgement what to do. Then someone else can tell you what to do and what to think and THAT is the GOAL at the heart of the leftist ideas. They wish to tell me what to do.

Sorry I'm not buying any bridges today no matter how strong and secure they appear.

So Rush Limbaugh calls his fans "dittoheads" because of their independent thinking?

If you don't question your generalizations you will end up in trouble. Walk into a room and you would be wise to check out the stability of the chair before you plunk your butt down on it.

TIME OUT! Rush Limbaugh's listeners do not constitute "the right;" I would not equate Michael Moore fans with "the left."

People who would accept the "dittoheads" sobriquet deserve your scorn, Silence. I am not one.

I see a great diversity of opinion, and quite a bit of internecine strife in what I call the right. Let's look at my favorite sources:

-- National Review: pro drug decriminalization, anti abortion, anti gay marriage, anti stem cell funding with federal dollars, limited immigration.
-- WSJ Ed Page: keep the drug war. Open borders/extensive immigration.
-- Weekly Standard: Keep the drug war, limited immigration.
-- Andrew Sullivan, Nick Stanton, Dennis Miller are all pro gay marriage.
-- Glenn Reynolds and Virginia Postrel strongly support stem cell research.

On the left, I see TNR saying Bush is an incompetent liar and The Nation adding that he is a thief and a criminal -- no, no, no -- let me be serious: name a prominent Democrat who opposes abortion or stem cell research, or extols the benefits of free trade (after Clinton was such a great champion) or pushes for school vouchers.

I just don't see their breaking stride -- which can be an awesome political benefit, it has made them a powerful minority party. But I don't see any evidence to back up your claim of a leftist non-conformism

I'm a democrat and I believe in free trade and school vouchers - as a Berkeley Square blogger how much more prominent can you get? My feeling about the conservative mind set comes partly from the constant ranking and classification they seem to do. The talking heads are always questioning how conservative (or how liberal) a certain politician is, as if there were some objective standard to compare against. (Maybe they should all be olympic gymnasts) In fact I recall upon first joining this blog declaring myself a moderate liberal. This immediately drew a sneer from JohnGalt who wanted to know if I was a liberal or a moderate.