Classical conservatism v. libertarianism

Andrew has a long post up which is worth a read, but here's the middle part that most interests me (emphasis mine):

One reason I admire Oakeshott is simply his understanding that the two deepest impulses in Western political thought - the individualist and the collectivist - need each other to keep our polities coherent. He, like me, preferred the individualist, and so my own leanings are toward smaller government, lower taxes, balanced budgets, individual freedom and prudent strength in foreign policy. But I also see when the alternative might be needed. There are times when the government does indeed need to make a big infrastructure investment or beef up its security technology or address an emergent and vital threat to a settled way of life, like climate change or Jihadist terror. Finding the best way for government to act at those times is a pragmatic and often difficult task; but I have no issues with such action. Government exists in some measure to provide a collective response to a newly felt need.

So when I look back at FDR, a part of me recoils at what he did to the size and power of the federal government. A part of me also understands that he was acting in a particular context and his legacy has become part of the very landscape conservatives might wish to reform but do not wish to abolish. Similarly today, a conservative should have no objection to major pragmatic attempts to prevent this depression taking on a life of its own and perpetuating pain more than necessary. And - this is the tough part - it might even be the case that the vastly growing social and economic inequality of the last three decades could justify redistribution via spending or taxes. The point is to sustain social order by buttressing the middle class: a conservative objective if ever there was one. Just to rile some Republicans even further, I don't see the attempt to roll back all legal abortion after forty years of Roe as a conservative move. It's a counter-revolutionary one. In that sense, yes, I did see Obama as a more conservative - because more pragmatic - option in the last election. And his temperament, his patience and his civility all appeal to the conservative not blinded by partisanship or ideology.

This super-pragmatism with a long-term preference for expanding freedom and limiting government is how I see the conservative temperament. At what point does it simply become me-tooism for liberalism? It does imply a constant long-term defeat, as cultural and social liberalism make their in-roads, or even as Christianism and Islamism wax and wane as neurotic religious responses to modernity. But conservatism's genius is to be cheerful and imaginative in managing defeat; and conservatives can always hope that the increasing complexity of modern society will make libertarian and federalist approaches more appealing, because they are the only ones capable of keeping such a multi-cultural polity in one piece. Only the market is smart enough to govern effectively in the immensely complex societies of our time (although the market itself of course requires constant regulation). And the new technologies of information have acted as a solvent to some of the more collectivist impulses of our time. There's also no reason why lovers of the past can't adapt to social change by adjusting existing institutions to coopt new social realities. This was always my goal in backing gay marriage: it was, in my view, the authentically conservative response to the emergence of open homosexuality in the West.

The first emphasis makes me cringe and default to an assumption that Bad Things Will Happen. However once an issue is sufficiently investigated and unintended consequences allowed for, the point is actually compatible with libertarianism. We are after all minarchists. Otherwise I'd call myself an anarchist (like those anarcho-capitalists).

The second emphasis is more difficult. Certain programs like the FDIC have proven beneficial, but I must reject the bulk of FDR's socialism on principle. This pure libertarian cause may be lost, so Andrew's idea of super-pragmatism does resonate. But on manners of economic socialism I shall remain, as William F. Buckley Jr. wrote in 1955: "standing athwart history yelling 'Stop!'"

On matters of non-economic socio-cultural norms, my position is turned around. Unlike social conservatives, I will tolerate anything that doesn't interfere with other individuals' negative rights.

This does not mean that I do not recognize the value of traditional, er, values. The ones that are most common today have been selected by a sort of social Darwinism process, and I respect the status quo for what it is. Unlike conservative traditionalists, however, I do not profess that older cultural values are inherently superior. Quite the contrary: I think newer ones are regularly adopted when they're better. When they're not better, they fizzle over time.

Science, technology, and other sorts of modern understanding continue to evolve. As they progress we should be capable of recognizing new and better alternatives to the old way of doing things. My preferred method of doing so is highly individualist (the ultimate federalism) : give everyone a free reign to live as they think is best, so long as they don't harm others (i.e. infringe on those negative rights).

Update: see Political Programmer for one liberal's take.