According to what is transmitted in the media, liberalism is the right, and the most liberal, the ultra-right. This is obviously problematic, since the ultra-right is also labeled as fascism and Nazism, and nothing could be further from the ideas of freedom than that.
Other labels often used to divide the spectrum of ideas are socialist and conservative. To a socialist, a liberal is undoubtedly a conservative. However, most liberals would not accept this moniker. Or, at the very least, would demand further clarification. If what one wants to “conserve” is a free market, the liberal will be a conservative. But if one wants to “conserve” a status quo that slows progress or restricts freedom, the liberal will be a radical for change.
Friedrich A. Hayek wrote in 1959 on this question and, as a liberal he claimed to be, argued that his thinking was moving away from both socialism and conservatism.
The Nobel laureate in economics argued that while “in the political arena” advocates of freedom “have no alternative” but to support conservative parties, it was appropriate to “draw a clear separation between the philosophy I advocate and that traditionally espoused by conservatives.”
In this regard, he took care to clarify:
… the American radicals and socialists began to ascribe to themselves the appellation of liberals. In spite of this, I continue to call my position liberal, which I believe differs from both conservatism and socialism.
It is usually assumed that, on a hypothetical line, the socialists occupy the extreme left and the conservatives the opposite right, while the liberals are located more or less in the center; but such a representation contains a serious mistake. In this respect, it would be more accurate to speak of a triangle, one of whose vertices would be occupied by the conservatives, while socialists and liberals, respectively, would occupy the other two.
The difference between the liberal and the conservative is, for Hayek, the attitude of one or the other towards change. As the name indicates, the conservative is averse to social change, while the liberal is so only to the extent that such change affects individual liberties.
For example, if one wants to impose a price control in a market, liberals and conservatives will be against the socialist in favor of intervention. Now if the change is about opening a given market to international competition, what will happen?
Conservatives here show a tendency to be nationalists who despise the foreign, so a protectionist temptation appears, something we can see well in the figure of Donald Trump. According to Hayek:
Conservatives generally reject socializing and dirigiste measures when it comes to the industrial field, a position to which the liberal joins. This does not prevent them from being protectionist in the agricultural sectors.
(…)
This repugnance that the conservative feels for everything new and unusual seems to be related to his hostility towards the international and his tendency to patriotic nationalism. (…) I will only add that this nationalist predisposition that concerns us is often what induces the conservative to take the collectivist path. After qualifying such industry or such wealth as ours, only one step is missing to demand that such resources be put at the service of national interests.
Generalizing the question:
Here is the first great difference that separates liberals and conservatives. Typical of the conservative, as has been noted time and again, is the fear of mutation, the fear of the new simply because it is new; the liberal position, on the contrary, is open and trusting, attracted, in principle, to everything that is free transformation and evolution, even if it is aware that, at times, one proceeds a little blindly (…)
Never, when [conservatives] look into the future, do they think that there may be unknown forces that will spontaneously set things right; a mentality in open contrast to the philosophy of liberals, who, without complexes or misgivings, accept free evolution, even if they are sometimes unaware of how far the process may lead them.
These words of Hayek are perfectly compatible with his idea of knowledge dispersed in society. Change cannot be controlled “from above” because the new discoveries that lead to progress are scattered among the millions of individual minds and actions that make up the planet. The key is to move towards a system where those minds and actions can develop without restriction. In Hayek’s words, “what the world most urgently needs today is to remove, without respect for anything or anyone, those innumerable obstacles to free development.”
This applies easily to the economy and makes liberals always welcome technological progress or the arrival of imports from abroad. But it can also extend to other areas, such as non-discrimination on the basis of race, religion, nationality or sexual orientation. Liberals also welcome diversity in this area, unlike at least some conservatives.
Conservatives, authoritarianism and public education
Hayek’s text also makes us reflect on two issues. First, he suggests that conservatives have a fondness for authoritarianism, since they rely on someone “from above” to permanently monitor changes, without leaving them to chance: Conservatives only feel reassured if they think that there is a higher mind that watches over and supervises everything; there must always be some authority to ensure that changes and mutations are carried out “in an orderly fashion.
This fear of the operation of apparently uncontrolled social forces explains two other characteristics of the conservative: his fondness for authoritarianism and his inability to understand the mechanism of the forces that regulate the market. (…) For the conservative, order is, in any case, the result of the permanent attention and vigilance exercised by the authorities.
At present there are no cases of authoritarianism or right-wing or conservative dictatorships, as there were in the past. However, Trump’s criticism of trade imbalances (the result of individual actions not controlled by any government) would be an example of what Hayek describes.
On another note, Hayek suggests that conservatives are always ready to criticize state coercion if it involves pursuing goals they are not sympathetic to, but look the other way if such intervention is compatible with their moral judgments:
The conservative, as a rule, does not oppose state coercion or arbitrariness when rulers pursue those objectives he considers right. The action of those in power, if they are honest and upright people, should not be restricted -he thinks- with rigid and prefixed rules (…) The conservative, like the socialist, is concerned with who governs, ignoring the problem of limiting the powers attributed to the ruler; and, like the Marxist, he considers it natural to impose his personal assessments on others.
This is perhaps most evident in the Argentine case and in the controversy over Comprehensive Sex Education (ESI).
It would seem that what bothers certain conservatives is not the fact that a single education plan is provided by the government, but the one that is provided. If it is ESI, they oppose it, if it is NO sex education, then it is all right. But in both cases it is being chosen from the official chair what content is taught to students.
The problem for liberals is the use of power, beyond the specific content of that power. This is another substantial difference.
In fact, Hayek himself makes this clear in the article:
It does not obscure the difference between liberalism and conservatism that in the United States it is possible to advocate individual freedom by defending traditional institutions formed long ago. Such institutions, for the liberal, are not valuable because they are old or American, but because they suit and point toward those goals he wishes to achieve.
Finally, there are points of contact between conservatives and liberals, true. But there are also enormous differences. That is why it is sometimes necessary to clarify. A liberal who claims not to be right-wing is probably thinking about some of this.
