Am I Conservative?

I find myself somewhat bewildered in the Babel of Labels that prevails since “Liberals” went in for the all-powerful state and “conservatives” came out for individual liberty. The Liberals want state power in order to promote “welfare,” and the conservatives want freedom in order to cultivate “virtue.” So at least Frank Meyer informs us [NR, Sept. 25, 1962]. “Freedom,” he says, “is by itself without content or purpose if the existence of an objective moral order which men should strive to understand and move toward is not accepted.” The content and purpose of freedom, to my mind, is to let men accept what appeals to them, and live their lives as they want to, so long as they do not encroach injuriously upon the lives of others. To advocate freedom, and then lay down the law as to how men “should” use it, is a contradiction in terms. It’s a reversion, not to classic liberalism, but to pre-liberal ecclesiastical authoritarianism—or what is left of it. I don’t strive to understand an objective moral order or move toward it, because I don’t think any such objective moral order exists. To me all such talk is pedantic pulpiteering, and as a profession of belief in individual freedom it is insincere and untrustworthy.

I find still less acceptable, from the standpoint of a real belief in freedom, a sermon by Brent Bozell which preceded this Meyerly pronouncement [NR, Sept. 11, 1962], Under the title “To Magnify the West” [NR, April 24, 1962], Bozell took a more explicit step back toward the authoritarianism of the church.

ME

About the Author

Max Eastman

Featured Tags

William F. Buckley Jr.

I find myself somewhat bewildered in the Babel of Labels that prevails since “Liberals” went in for the all-powerful state and “conservatives” came out for individual liberty. The Liberals want state power in order to promote “welfare,” and the conservatives want freedom in order to cultivate “virtue.” So at least Frank Meyer informs us [NR, Sept. 25, 1962]. “Freedom,” he says, “is by itself without content or purpose if the existence of an objective moral order which men should strive to understand and move toward is not accepted.” The content and purpose of freedom, to my mind, is to let men accept what appeals to them, and live their lives as they want to, so long as they do not encroach injuriously upon the lives of others. To advocate freedom, and then lay down the law as to how men “should” use it, is a contradiction in terms. It’s a reversion, not to classic liberalism, but to pre-liberal ecclesiastical authoritarianism—or what is left of it. I don’t strive to understand an objective moral order or move toward it, because I don’t think any such objective moral order exists. To me all such talk is pedantic pulpiteering, and as a profession of belief in individual freedom it is insincere and untrustworthy.

I find still less acceptable, from the standpoint of a real belief in freedom, a sermon by Brent Bozell which preceded this Meyerly pronouncement [NR, Sept. 11, 1962], Under the title “To Magnify the West” [NR, April 24, 1962], Bozell took a more explicit step back toward the authoritarianism of the church.