“LIBERAL? WHAT IS LIBERAL?”: From the B-movie extravaganza, “Reagan Island.” (Scroll down for explanation…)

I just finished writing a freelance piece (about the Middle East) in which I used the terms “liberalizing” and “liberal reform” rather, uh, liberally. I used these as shorthand for “Bill of Rights-type freedoms,” basically. Every now and then I’m reminded that this site could be more or less accurately described as “conservative” (the thing in the description box), “liberal” (as in “classical liberal”), or even, at a stretch, “libertarian.” (OK, “libertarian-leaning” or “libertarian-influenced” is probably better.) None of them fit perfectly (and why should I expect to find a ready-made political identity waiting for me on the rack at TJ Maxx?), and all give some false impressions. I’m OK with that because I think my writing speaks for itself, and because really, what are my options? I can’t make up a word like “jfaoheihah” and use that to denote my political beliefs; I’m stuck with words that already exist, words that people understand.

Partly because of this lack of prefab political identity, I’m always intrigued by people trying to “rescue” or “reclaim” the word “liberal.” I usually use “liberal” to mean “classical liberal.” One of my big political-philosophy interests/projects is refounding political liberalism (a.k.a. Bill of Rights-type freedoms…) on a basis other than a) Enlightenment rationalism, b) utilitarianism, c) the “Harm Principle,” or d) relativism. Father Richard Neuhaus of First Things has written quite a bit about this. Many of the books I list here work to show that liberalism can and should be based on principles like enhancing loyalty, encouraging personal responsibility, and forming close ties between people; here’s what you might call a beta version of my current beliefs.

But although politics is not metaphysics, and people with radically different metaphysical foundations can come to the same political views, a liberalism that rejects rationalist (when I say this you should be thinking Voltaire, by the way) or utilitarian foundations will look different from what we typically think of as “classical liberalism.” Another drawback of “classical liberalism” as a political rallying cry is that it is musty, turned toward the past and not the future. It is a term that almost screams, “I wasn’t made for times like this!” It sounds like a subsection of a political science department, not like a vigorous contemporary political movement. It does not reflect the heavy influence of Hayek and other theorists of spontaneous order or dynamism; it doesn’t reflect the heavy Christian and Jewish intellectual influences on my thinking and that of my closest political allies; it sounds like a philosophy that can talk about abstract nouns like “free expression” but not the Internet, “the rights of women” but not marriage, “foreign entanglements” but not nuclear war, and “the people” but not pop culture. The most obvious problem, of course, is that most people who say “liberal” in the US today mean “socialist.” (And lots of people say “socialist” and mean “compassionate.” And vice versa.) Perhaps the main reason I call this blog conservative rather than liberal is that, as I’ve said before, I think it will be easier to transform the conservative movement than the contemporary liberal (Left) movement, or even the libertarian movement (which is too beholden to an idea of liberty as license). This seems to be true in part because “conservative” is a much more flexible word in contemporary political discourse–more so than “liberal,” and definitely more so than “libertarian.”

So why do I feel like I need a name for the thing I think? Well, a movement needs a rallying cry. It needs a shorthand for its principles. In the end, a name will emerge; I’m less concerned about that, more concerned about actually drawing all the principles together under some umbrella so that I can make the connections between them clearer. For the moment, I’m going with “rock’n’roll conservatism,” which is weird but provocative. (“You’re ugly but you intrigue me,” as they say.)

Argh, I meant to make this a post about what RNRC actually is, but I have gotten very little sleep lately, so I’m worried that my head will thunk down on the keyboard. As Nietzsche wrote, “Blessed are the sleepy ones: for they shall drop off.” Things will be much less wild and woolly here tomorrow, so I will be back then with a statement of principle. And I should be back to regular posting volume then too. Don’t touch that dial!