By Filings on
Society & Culture
Classical Liberalism
Post-liberal Integralism
Political Philosophy
Albert Mohler

“Classical liberals have assumed that the natural family and the values surrounding it would prevail ‘in a condition of liberty.’ Yet the radical changes in marriage and the family ‘have all been done in the name of liberty.’ Social conservatism however ‘requires language that goes well beyond that of individual liberty.’” - Juicy Ecumenism

Discussion

Mon, 04/01/24

Classical liberals have assumed that the natural family and the values surrounding it would prevail ‘in a condition of liberty.’

No, not really.

Classical liberalism is being inaccurately criticized a lot these days. I suppose it’s human nature to try to find one thing to blame for bad cultural changes.

But classical liberalism has a strong thread of emphasis on the importance of personal virtue. It was never a “freedom only” political philosophy.

So the accurate statement would be

Classical liberals have assumed that the natural family and the values surrounding it would prevail ‘in a condition of liberty and virtue.’

Also J.S. Mill does not represent classical liberalism, either (which the post doesn’t claim, but I can’t tell if Deenan or Mohler make that claim).

It’s just important to distinguish the views on liberty and virtue that informed America’s founding (aka “classical liberalism”) from more modern innovations like social liberalism.

One of the reasons it’s so important is that the current wave of populism, with it’s anti-establishment mood, and authoritarian mood, is fueling a lot of talk about bring in some kind of fundamentally new order (including various versions of ‘Christian Nationalism’).

The word for this is radicalism. It has nothing to do with conservatism. It has a lot more to do with ideas and values that birthed the French Revolution (which the American founders were mostly leery of, see Federalist Papers, for example).

So these days we’re seeing the right drift so far right, is gradually meeting up with the radical left in it’s advocacy for revolution. Again, this is not conservatism. (Extremism is inherently radical, whether ‘right’ or ‘left.’)

If the classical liberals were right, then there is no substitute for grass roots virtue—which cannot be imposed by government. At best, government can try to nurture it.

If indeed the time for classical liberalism has come to an end, conservatism means finding a wise, cautious, thoughtful alternative, not promoting anti-establishment radicalism.

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.