Principles and Heresies

The development of contemporary American conserv- : atism has _ been marked, on the theoretical level; by a continuing tension between a traditionalist emphasis and a libertarian emphasis. Over the years I have argued that these positions are in fact not :incom- [ patible opposites, but complementary – poles of a tension and balance which, both in theory and practice, define American conservatism as it has come into being at midcentury. If anything, I have stressed the libertarian emphasis because I have felt that unmodified traditionalism, stressing virtue and order in disregard of the ontological and social status of the freedom of the in_ dividual person, tended dangerously towards an authoritarianism wrong in it_ self and alien to the spirit of American conservatism. Recently, however, there have been ominous signs that the danger of a disbalance just as alien to conservatism is arising not from traditionalist quarters, ‘ but from an untrammeled libertarianism, which tends as directly to anarchy and nihilism as unchecked traditionalism tends to authoritarianism. This libertarianism can be seen at its most extreme in such dropouts from the Right. as Murray Rothbard and Karl Hess and their handful of followers. While their position has become indistinguishable from that of the SDS, there are increasing signs of a more, widespread, if more moderate, development in this direction, primarily among the young, but by no means restricted to them. The essential rationale of this position is so far removed from the rationale of libertarian conservatism, and so completely ignores the proper foundations of liberty in the actual circumstances of the human condition, that, like the position of the anarchist wing of the SDS, its proper denomination is not libertarianism but libertinism. A true libertarianism is derived from metaphysical roots in the very constitution of being, and places its defense of freedom as a political end.in the con-. text of moral responsibility for the pursuit of virtue and the underlying social . necessity for the preservation of order. The libertine impulse that masquerades as libertarianism, on the other hand, dis- – regards all moral responsibility, ranges itself against the minimum needs of social order, and raises the freedom of the individual person (regarded as the unbridled expression of every desire, intellectual or emotional) to the status of an absolute end.

The underlying issue between conservative libertarianism and _ libertine libertarianism is at bottom a totally opposed view of the nature and destiny of men. The libertines—like those other. products of the modern world, ritualistic liberals, socialists, Communists, fascists—are ideologues first and last. That is, they reject reality as it has been studied, grasped, understood and acted upon in five thousand years or so of civilized history, and pose an abstract construction as the basis of action. They would replace God’s creation of this multifarious, complex world in which we live, – and substitute for it their own creation, simple, neat and inhuman—as inhuman as the blueprints of the bulldozing engi- =Heetic. The place of freedom in the spiritual economy of men is a high one indeed, but it:is specific and not absolute. By its very nature, it cannot be an end of men’s existence. Its meaning is essentially freedom from coercion, but that, important as it is, cannot be an end. It is empty of goal or norm. Its function is to relieve men of external coercion so that they may freely seek their good. It is for this reason that libertarian conservatives champion freedom as the end of the political order: politics, which is, at its core, the disposition of force in society, will, if not directed towards this end, create massive distor. tions and obstacles in: men’s search for their good. But that said, an equally — important question remains. Free, how — are men to use their freedom? The libertine answers that they should do what they want. Sometimes, in the line of the , philosophers of the French revolution, he arbitrarily posits the universal benevolence of human beings. He presumes that if everyone does _whateverhe wants, everything will be for the best in the best of all possible worlds. But — whether so optimistically qualified or not, his answer ignores the hard facts 3 of history. For it is only in civilization that men have begun to rise towards” their potentiality; and civilization is a fragile growth, constantly menaced by the dark forces that suck man back towards his brutal beginnings.

FS

About the Author

Frank S. Meyer

Frank S. Meyer was a senior editor of National Review.

Featured Tags

The development of contemporary American conserv- : atism has _ been marked, on the theoretical level; by a continuing tension between a traditionalist emphasis and a libertarian emphasis. Over the years I have argued that these positions are in fact not :incom- [ patible opposites, but complementary – poles of a tension and balance which, both in theory and practice, define American conservatism as it has come into being at midcentury. If anything, I have stressed the libertarian emphasis because I have felt that unmodified traditionalism, stressing virtue and order in disregard of the ontological and social status of the freedom of the in_ dividual person, tended dangerously towards an authoritarianism wrong in it_ self and alien to the spirit of American conservatism. Recently, however, there have been ominous signs that the danger of a disbalance just as alien to conservatism is arising not from traditionalist quarters, ‘ but from an untrammeled libertarianism, which tends as directly to anarchy and nihilism as unchecked traditionalism tends to authoritarianism. This libertarianism can be seen at its most extreme in such dropouts from the Right. as Murray Rothbard and Karl Hess and their handful of followers. While their position has become indistinguishable from that of the SDS, there are increasing signs of a more, widespread, if more moderate, development in this direction, primarily among the young, but by no means restricted to them. The essential rationale of this position is so far removed from the rationale of libertarian conservatism, and so completely ignores the proper foundations of liberty in the actual circumstances of the human condition, that, like the position of the anarchist wing of the SDS, its proper denomination is not libertarianism but libertinism. A true libertarianism is derived from metaphysical roots in the very constitution of being, and places its defense of freedom as a political end.in the con-. text of moral responsibility for the pursuit of virtue and the underlying social . necessity for the preservation of order. The libertine impulse that masquerades as libertarianism, on the other hand, dis- – regards all moral responsibility, ranges itself against the minimum needs of social order, and raises the freedom of the individual person (regarded as the unbridled expression of every desire, intellectual or emotional) to the status of an absolute end.

The underlying issue between conservative libertarianism and _ libertine libertarianism is at bottom a totally opposed view of the nature and destiny of men. The libertines—like those other. products of the modern world, ritualistic liberals, socialists, Communists, fascists—are ideologues first and last. That is, they reject reality as it has been studied, grasped, understood and acted upon in five thousand years or so of civilized history, and pose an abstract construction as the basis of action. They would replace God’s creation of this multifarious, complex world in which we live, – and substitute for it their own creation, simple, neat and inhuman—as inhuman as the blueprints of the bulldozing engi- =Heetic. The place of freedom in the spiritual economy of men is a high one indeed, but it:is specific and not absolute. By its very nature, it cannot be an end of men’s existence. Its meaning is essentially freedom from coercion, but that, important as it is, cannot be an end. It is empty of goal or norm. Its function is to relieve men of external coercion so that they may freely seek their good. It is for this reason that libertarian conservatives champion freedom as the end of the political order: politics, which is, at its core, the disposition of force in society, will, if not directed towards this end, create massive distor. tions and obstacles in: men’s search for their good. But that said, an equally — important question remains. Free, how — are men to use their freedom? The libertine answers that they should do what they want. Sometimes, in the line of the , philosophers of the French revolution, he arbitrarily posits the universal benevolence of human beings. He presumes that if everyone does _whateverhe wants, everything will be for the best in the best of all possible worlds. But — whether so optimistically qualified or not, his answer ignores the hard facts 3 of history. For it is only in civilization that men have begun to rise towards” their potentiality; and civilization is a fragile growth, constantly menaced by the dark forces that suck man back towards his brutal beginnings.