Just Another Political Post.

[Chaerophon]

Don't worry, the antics of the Republicans since Bush the First will make 'conservative' a term of opprobrium soon enough. In some circles it already is.

If you are going to ignore ordinary usage, then you ought to realize that the notion 'conservative' as it is applied to many Republicans today is, at least as regards economic policy, little more than a direct translation for 'old liberal'. Old-style British conservatives or "Tories," in the traditional British sense (read: not Maggie Thatcher and her ilk) have very little in common with the modern American conservative. They were statist and often anti-market. What they did hold in common with modern conservatives was a stultifying and unjustified conviction in their own moral superiority.

Hayek was an 'old liberal' of your preferred type (what some people would now call a libertarian). Now he is worshipped in 'conservative' economic dogma. Modern liberals with their sometime emphasis on state involvement in the economy for the sake of social welfare hold beliefs on the economy that would be more acceptable to an 'old Tory' than the modern laissez-faire of Republican conservatives.

Conservatism is a phenomenon, not a set of concrete beliefs. It is defined in a society with relation to the phenomena which it protests against. It is not by definition 'pro-market, anti-statist and religious'.

Liberalism is not one particular ideological variant on the notions of liberty and equality or another; it is a continuum of interpretation. It is a set of beliefs based on different interpretation of the same principles, namely: liberty, equality, progress, individualism, property, democracy, etc. Some liberals value individual liberty in a way that entails equality of opportunity among a society's members and envision progress in such terms. Others believe the goal of progress to be best fulfilled by a less intrusive state, and this too is an interpretation of equality in terms of 'equality of right'.

I believe that liberals are identifiable according to such indicators and not in terms of the fact that "Locke is sometimes called the first liberal, so all liberals have to be like Locke." Why would that have to be the case? Second-generation commentators on Locke such as J.S. Mill, T.H. Green, and Hobhouse believed in the fundamental values that Locke espoused, but felt that a Lockean variant was insufficient to the realization of those values. Mill's work ended up almost immediately becoming a more dominant interpretation of liberal values, but other commentators on him have taken different paths in delineating their interpretation of the same fundamental values. Same values, different hierarchy of belief/interpretation among/of such values.

Thus, Friedman and Rawls, despite their disagreements, might still both be considered liberals. A liberal need not endorse abortion in order to be a liberal. It is all about HOW they define their beliefs.

I agree, we must define our terms in order to discuss things coherently. What I don't agree with is your blanket contention that liberalism 'is and has always been' one particular thing. Liberals can be criticized by other liberals based on what the latter believe to be the flawed interpretation of liberal principles carried out by the former.