But, let's look at the political reality of the moment. Having won most ideological arguments over the past 30 years, "conservatism" as it is understood today is in pretty sorry shape. As a somewhat agrarian paleocon, I find that the liberal death-wish that Burnham excorciated still lives in that paradox of radical individualism and lust for systemic power noted by Aaron and Mr. Murphy. We are trapped in the language of the enlightenment and can only escape from the spectre of left-wing liberalism and neo-con liberalism by reasserting the tradtionalism of community and culture, the small platoons, that are the best defense against that deracinated vision.

Aside from our moral defenses against the encroachment of radical individualsim however, do we not find common cause with some on what we call or used to call the left when it comes to a vision for community? The liberal is always reaching for the carrot or stick of the melioristic state to accomplish a utopian vision, and we rightly resist that impulse because we find that in our moral perogatives that man must learn to discipline himself by means of a framework of faith, family and the small platoons. Where do we allow for the proper functioning of a competent state in increasing the felcity of that community. To put it more bluntly, can meliorism be a conservative impulse that leads to an increased felicity of community. How far are we willing to go to fix the problem of health care - or are we content to ignore the demographic trend that will swamp the finances of the state within 15 years? What is the proper conservative impulse as to Social Security - dismantle it - surely not given the reliance of so much of the populace on that pension, now and in the future? How do we best assert the interests of family, church and small community in the face of the creative destruction often wrought by the forces of modern capitalism? Just a few questions about where we from here.

With discussion and debate, Frankfurt schoolers' "arguments" are discredited and demolished. There is no need to use their smear tactics. It legitimizes their use of them (they invented them) and is not honorable in any case.

I turned into a far left liberal in college, like many (most?) young people these days. I recovered, but I remember why I did it.

The far left is correct about the importance of the environment, and of the importance of restraining corporate greed. Conservatives, even traditional ones, miss the mark on both of these issues.

Just because this world isn't the only one doesn't mean that we should abuse it with pollution and exterminate its creatures for the sake of "progress" (read: corporate profits), and there can be no vibrant social culture in a nation held by the iron grip of capitalist billionaires.

What is liberalism? Well it depends on what you're getting liberal about, it depends on how you conceptualise the human being--is a human being a short-term pleasure machine?

No, but that's how modern liberalism conceptualises life, and that's why it is dysfunctional.

It amazes me that none of you have realised yet that you are voicing your disagreement with a form of individual utilitarianism. Most people today- if you ask them about their views on morality and the world say "I don't care what other people do in their own time, as long as I get to do what's fair for me, everything's fine"--this is Benthamite rationality.

All of the first monopolistic capitalists were Benthamites. Jeremy Bentham's philosophy appealed to the State, because he was a lawyer, and the modern State is simply a complex court-system.

This ideology filters down into society--it has for past 150 years. You can read about it in Marx, in the Middletown studies, in John Ruskin, Merloo--it's remarkably and very clearly accelerated over time.

I may not have the opportunities or credentials to get a position writing in your journals, but I hope you chase up Utilitarian individualism, it would probably add a new critical dimension to your work that would transcend that hazardous Left-Right distinction.

Cheers, Aaron.

Liberalism, as outlined by Mr. Williamson supra is, it would seem, in an unholy, at least on first glance, alliance with radical individualism, for the purposes of discussion the radical individualist being defined as the as the antithesis of the "republican man," i.e. the man who would demonstrate his virtues in "res publica." One aspect of the "republican man" is his ability to honor authority. The radical individualist, on the other hand, disdains authority wherever he might find it: God, the family, the Church, the social norms and taboos, the polity and even common law. Ironically, in order to overthrow authority, one needs the will to and the access to power. All of the left-wing Hegelians: Marxists of all ilks, fascist of all sorts and social democrats of all varieties loathed authority and sought and have sought the power to overthrow it. Marx wanted to do away with the state precisely, rightly or wrongly for him, it represented (represents) authority. Here I would argue that power fills the vacuum left by waning authority, or as the values of first principles wane in the hearts and minds of men - laws written in their hearts - power in the sense of positive law and brute force must wax.

For the radical individual to overthrown authority, he needs power and to have this power he needs an ally. Liberalism, which claims to quest for "freedom" or "liberty" also needs to overthrow the seats of authority. Hence, the nexus between the two.

Very well put. Thank you for this.