Liberals, Conservatives, ???

(I was going to call this "Liberals & Conservatives, Democrats & Republicans, Tories and Whigs", but I prefer to keep the titles a little shorter...)

So, as both of my regular readers know, I have been reading the works of Friedrich Hayek lately; first his classic The Road to Serfdom (which P.J. O'Rourke called the second most important work of economics in history, after Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations); then his 1980's The Fatal Conceit, and now (just finished, actually) The Constitution of Liberty.

This last work--published in 1960, not quite halfway between Serfdom and Conceit--is definitely the most erudite work of the three. I understood just about everything he was saying, but I often had to go back and read a paragraph twice. Also, there are over 400 pages, not counting footnotes and bibliographical information, which makes it not only denser information-wise than the other two works, but longer than both of them put together...

(Notwithstanding, there are a lot of gems there, and I will probably start posting quotes as soon as I get my notes in order.)

The postscript to Constitution is entitled "Why I Am Not A Conservative." Now, it is obvious throughout Hayek's work that he uses the term "liberal" in it's classic, or European sense, to include belief in a free market, and individual liberty. Thus, his definition of "conservative" is also the classic, or European one, which rests almost entirely on maintaining the status quo, opposition to change, with no particular interest in individual liberty that does not already exist in society. He goes on to say that there is no equivalent to this form of conservatism in the United States, since the traditional socio-political philosophy here is, in fact, classical liberalism.

I suspect we could say now, in the 21^st Century, that to endorse Classical Liberalism in the United States is to be a Conservative. (Which is not the same as saying that the Republican Party is necessarily a conservative party any longer, albeit it is the primary refuge of conservatives in the United States today. I say that without apologies to any would-be Constitutional Parties, Libertarians, Larouchies or Paulites. These organizations always seem to wind up advocating wild blue, wide-eyed positions that alienate most voters.)

(See Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism for a description of "American Progressivism", and how it influenced Marx, Engels, Bismarck, Mussolini, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, and came to be known by the misnomer "liberalism".)

Part of why I bring this up is bemusement at the eagerness with which the main stream media (which is becoming known in some quarters, including around here, as the "State Run Press") are so eager to pronounce the death of the Republican Party, and of the Conservative ideal with it. Note that we hear ad nauseum about a Republican politician who is caught in what under President Clinton was commonly considered a private peccadillo, irrelevant to one's office, but we hear little or nothing about malfeasance in office and/or possible criminal conduct on the part of prominent Democrats. (See this post on Gateway Pundit.)

As for Sarah Palin...! Well, I've made my opinion about Palin Derangement Syndrome pretty clear, I think. I know some say that she has no future in national politics; I figure if Nixon could make a comeback, Sarah Palin certainly can. Whether she should run for national office again is another question. I have the feeling--had last summer, in fact--that the GOP was not taking it's chances in the '08 Presidential Campaign seriously; McCain sure didn't seem to. And now, rather than admit that they were fighting with one foot in a bucket by their own choice, former members of the McCain "Campaign" want to blame the one person in the campaign who actually had any sort of ability to connect with the average American.

Incredible. Reprehensible. If I weren't firmly opposed to conspiracy theories, I'd speculate that there was some sort of Machiavellian plan to throw the '08 election, so as to set up the Democratic Party for a failure of biblical proportions.

Besides, I doubt the Republicans capable of conceiving, let alone carrying out, such a plan.

In comments around the blogosphere, I see speculation as to the reasons behind Sarah Palin's resignation as governor of Alaska. Palin Derangement Syndrome is rampant amongst progressives and socialists--but I repeat myself--and hope is common (but not universal) among conservatives. The hope centers around two themes: That Sarah Palin will, in fact, run for national office in 2012, and/or that she will get heavily involved in the Tea Party movement, including taking a leadership role in a "Tea Party Political Party.

Which description seems redundant, and even more open to, and deserving of, ridicule than simply calling it "The Tea Party Movement."

Now, I have mentioned before that I have never been comfortable with party politics, or identifying myself as a member of one party or another. Even as a child I thought voting a straight party ticket was akin to a strait jacket. I joined thousands of my fellow Washingtonians in outrage at the Democratic and Republican Parties of the Evergreen State for suing to end our "open primary", in which one could vote for any candidate from any party. Don't like the fact that I could, theoretically, vote for a loser from your party, in hopes that "my" party will have a worthy candidate, and yours won't? Only let worthy candidates run!

Anyway, how about, if we have to form a new political party, (as opposed to reforming the GOP), we call it after the historical British political party which historically supported the free market, and individual liberty, and supported the American Revolution against the Tories: The New Whig Party?