Fusing Liberty and Tradition?
Writing by abuhatem on Saturday, 24 of May , 2008 at 7:17 pm
Frank S. Meyer was perhaps the most well known fusionist conservative political theorist in American history. Meyer’s task was to merge both the classical liberal wing of the conservative movement which aimed for economic and civil liberties, low taxes, and opposed the New Deal, with classical conservatism which saw tradition as the highest end.
Murray Rothbard, a prominent figure in the resurgence of American classical liberalism, criticized Frank Meyer’s fusionism for its “muddled logic.” Either reason he said, was the foundation of political society and liberty, or tradition, not both.
The conceptual chaos of conservatism may be traced back to its origins: a reaction against the New Deal. Since modern conservatism emerged in response to the particular leap into statism of the 1930s and 1940s, it necessarily took on the features of any “popular front”: that is, defined more by what it opposed than what it stood for. As a result, conservatism came to include a congeries of opponents of the New Deal, who had little positive in common. If we wish to inquire what all of these groups had in common, beyond sheer hatred of Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal, I can think of only one theme linking them all: opposition to egalitarianism, to compulsory levelling by use of state power; beyond that, conservatism is Chaos and Old Night. Even negative reaction to the New Deal no longer suffices for anything like a coherent stance, since not only is there a problem of which aspects of the New Deal to focus on, but also whether the post-New Deal system should remain in place and be subject only to marginal adjustment – that is, whether conservatism should be a holding operation – or whether the system should be repealed in toto.
The answer to this question is that fusing tradition and liberty is not fairly difficult whatsoever. The vast majority of the first classical conservatives and traditionalists - including Burke - where Whigs who believed that tradition intrinsically entailed economic freedom. Even non-Western traditionalists, such as Ibn Khaldun (who certainly believed in tradition in society) found transgression against economic freedom as the impetus to societal decline.
Meyer’s contention that tradition in and of itself entails liberty, because liberty is an essential aspect of tradition, solves the holistic problem of modern conservatism. Liberty is fused with tradition because they are two things which must not be rent asunder. As psychologist Abrham Maslow wrote, the third force in psychology is that when one whole is rent asunder pathology results. Maslow was discussing science and religion, and legalism and spirituality, but what he says is true. As Christ says, may God bless him and give him peace, in the New Testament “What therefore God hath joined together, let not men render asunder.” As Muslims we wholly agree with this teaching.
The tension between liberty and tradition however is not the main dividing line between classical liberalism and classical conservatism. The early classical conservatives were a type of classical liberals. Burke in his Notes on Scarcity disapproves of government intervention in the economy, welfare programs, and affirmed religious toleration. And although De’Maistre, the second founding father of classical conservatism, rejected democracy in favor of monarchy, his economic views were market-oriented nonetheless (he surely was no socialist).
As Rothbard recounts the main tension between liberty and tradition is the question of what the paramount guiding principle is - reason, or tradition?
On this question the Burkeans and traditionalists side with tradition over abstract reason. Modern Burkeans such as Jim Kalb note that although reason can achieve objective truth, the bounded rationality of man makes tradition a much better guide. The classical liberals always side with reason, for reason is that which establishes the natural law and natural rights and understands that it is self-evident that man has rights given from God, or nature, or reason.
Meyer attempts to fuse both together. But ultimately, there must be a source that is relied upon, reason or tradition. The American Burkean traditionalists such as Russell Kirk, Richard Weaver, and modern “paleoconservatives” such as Pat Buchanan, Samuel Francis, Jim Kalb and others relied upon tradition first and foremost. The classical liberal American conservatives or “The Old Right” (which constitute the overwhelming vast majority) such as Robert Taft, and others, relied upon reason first and foremost.
Conservatism is a big tent. There is the “Old Right” of Grover Cleavland, and Robert Taft which may be called pure classical liberals. There is the “New Right” wherein the isolationism of the past was shunned for interventionism (in some circles, not all) and where Burkean classical conservative ideas were revived.
The central question amongst these varying New Right branches was whether the state should use coercion to enforce morality. Some said no, absolutely not. Some said yes, absolutely. And others said each community should decide at the smallest level (federalism, or the European Union and Catholic teaching of “subsidiarity”).
The antiwar right is right with me wherever their political persuasions lie. However, what is my take on this matter? I am a traditionalist fusionist.
Yet my traditionalism is not as extreme as Jim Kalb who sees it as more important than reason. I lie squarely in the camp of reason, and it is reason as Meyer clarified which is what tells us that tradition should be followed. And tradition, and reason, tell us of the benefits of liberty. Thus I am a Burkean Whig, a conservative with enough of a dose of (natural law) classical liberalism to be a federalist on moral issues (in the spirit of the principle of subsidiarity!).
Category: Political philosophy
- Add this post to
- Del.icio.us -
- Meneame -
- Digg
Comment by Jim Kalb
Made Tuesday, 3 of June , 2008 at 6:59 pm
It’s an interesting question, the relation between tradition and reason. My usual position is that
Both tradition and reason are necessary authorities in any activity that is at all complex and comprehensive. Neither is adequate by itself to human life. Nor can either be subordinated to the other, if only because they help constitute each other. Reason requires the aid of concepts, connections and judgments provided by tradition, while the development and comprehension of tradition make use of rational ordering and insight. A rational traditionalist therefore accepts both tradition and reason as basic to what he is, knows and does.
So I don’t really subordinate reason to tradition, or so it seems. On the other hand I suppose it’s true that I think that as to us tradition is prior in the same way experience is prior to knowledge and the presumed to the explicit. Reason can’t get started without a tradition it can rely on. (That’s as to us. As a matter of ultimate reality God’s reason is of course prior.)
Comment by 
abuhatem
Made Tuesday, 3 of June , 2008 at 10:48 pm
Thanks for clarifying your position. You are absolutely correct, reason cannot exist in a vacuum. From where can we reason if it is not in the context of experience or tradition? I do agree with you there. However, it is a very complex matter and there are so many more intricate questions with great political and social philosophical implications.
