Why I Am Not a Conservative by F.A. Hayek is a well-known but often misrepresented essay, argues Janet Bufton in this piece for Econlib.
One of the biggest misconceptions is that Hayek’s use of the terms “liberal” and “conservative” neatly map onto what we mean by them nowadays, she explains.
“Hayek wasn’t describing what political ‘conservatives’ believed in 1960 or predicting what they’d believe now. If we were to point that out that he hadn’t accomplished either of those things, he might respond, ‘Of course not. That’s not why I wrote the essay. It has another purpose.’ Conservatism, like liberalism, has real meaning, but it doesn’t imply a timeless set of concrete policy proposals.”
These terms ought to be broken from the left/right distinction that has laid claim to them in our contemporary language, Bufton writes. Rather, Hayek wrote that there can be a conservatism present on both sides.
“Conservatism on the left tries to direct economic change by following a mid-20th century economic model that supported relatively high security and pay even for low-skilled workers. Conservatism on the right pursues social stability by trying to enshrine social institutions like the nuclear, heterosexual-parent family or to replicate western political success in the developing world with foreign intervention. This spectrum-straddling conservatism explains skepticism about global trade, the globalized food supply, GMOs, and modern medicine on both the left and right.”
Recognizing this and returning the discussion to abstract political philosophies and ideas rather than specific partisan preferences, Bufton argues, would enable us to stop talking past one another. It would lessen the hostility of debate and open the door to cross-party coalitions focused on particular issues — a worthy aim if, rather than merely scoring points for our own team, we truly want to improve our society.
