The Authoritarians in Our Midst

These days, many individuals, particularly those who identify as radical and libertarian, have also begun to define themselves as conservative. Essentially, these individuals often prioritize their conservative identity over their libertarian one. I am not referring to conservatism as a lifestyle. Undoubtedly, this does not contradict libertarianism. John Locke, for example, may have been one of the most religious individuals we have ever seen, but his principles laid the foundation for our current libertarian views.

When we use the term “Conservative” in our research, we will be referring to individuals who seek to garner widespread acceptance of their views by utilizing state power, and this is not limited to religion; all authoritarian views employ the same methods, hence the importance of the broad scope of our definition of “Conservative.” This research is not aimed at religious or tradition-bound individuals. Because our research focuses on a contemporary paradigm of libertarianism, we must use these definitions, not because conservatism is the only view that uses these methods. Therefore, we aim to conduct a study that encompasses all authoritarian views, and the concept of freedom that we will discuss certainly deserves a detailed explanation, as we accept Isaiah Berlin’s distinction. Our research does not adhere to a definition of positive (Duty-based) freedom. We will delve into an investigation of negative freedom, which represents the roots of the old times’ “Laissez-faire” defenders. ^[1] In exploring negative freedom, we will draw on Murray N. Rothbard’s portrayal of conservatives as defenders of the militaristic old order and take a look at its historical origins. ^[2]

The “Libertarians” we will evaluate claim to embrace political conservatism, but do not forget to frequently mention libertarianism as well. We query whether conservatism and libertarianism can coexist. Prevalent prejudices are starting to form globally, suggesting that libertarians have an obligation to be conservative, and conservative “Libertarians” often excommunicate those who are not conservative from libertarianism. Our goal is to discuss whether this is a contradiction through the lens of historical origins.

Murray Rothbard stated that the Age of Revolutions divided world politics into two sides. On the left side of the axis, liberals were aiming to bring about a new order, while on the right side, conservatives were defending the old system. ^[3] Although the consensus is that this began with the French Revolution, it can be traced back to an earlier period: 1688. The year 1688 was a turning point for modern England. It represents a change in the system, with the overthrow of the old absolutist government through a “Coup” (The king fled the throne) and the installation of a new monarch. James II, a member of the Stuart dynasty who was ruling in the 1680s, was a Catholic, which had always been a source of discomfort among the people. The liberal faction of the time, known as the Whigs, saw II James and his supporters as “The Pope’s successors” ^[4] The reason for such rhetoric was James’ attempts to make secret treaties with Catholic states. According to them, James had betrayed his people and the only reason he betrayed them was to protect his throne. The Tory Party, which was part of the royalist faction, supported James in protecting his throne, -so that means political power. During that period, England was not a desirable place to live, economic hardships were being felt more acutely, and the bloody elimination of dissenters had become a part of daily life. While defending this rule, the Tories claimed that the king held a sacred position.

According to them, every king was an appointed envoy of God, and opposing the king was equivalent to opposing God. The Whigs, on the other hand, formed the progressive (Liberal) faction of the time and wanted a king who did not betray his people and a strong parliament to free the country from external influences. There was a reason why they referred to the Tories as “Papa’s successor”: according to the doctrine of two swords, the Pope had authority over every king, regardless of the power of the state. According to this doctrine established by Pope Gelasius I, while kings represented humans’ material aspect and governed them, the Pope was the ruler of humans’ spiritual aspect. ^[5] This doctrine was widely accepted in the Catholic world, and the Pope was always regarded as superior to the king due to its sacredness. Therefore, the independence of the country’s governance (Due to the king being Catholic) was always a subject of debate among the Whigs. British politics was divided precisely because of this issue. When we examine the Tories and the Whigs, we come across one of the clearest examples of the distinction between conservatism as a philosophy of life and political conservatism.

The Tories were the number one unifier of Catholics and royalists in the country. However, they were interested in the vision of individuals rather than their Catholicism. Whigs, on the other hand, were able to distinguish between politics and spirituality. As we said at the beginning, although Locke was a very religious man, he was a Whig. The fact that he was from a different religion also had an effect, but the Whigs were enemies not only of Catholic kings but of all tyrants. There are many individuals in their personal lives who adhere to the Catholic faith but have served the Whig cause. For example, Lord Acton described Thomas Aquinas as the “First Whig.” ^[6] But wasn’t this contradictory? Aquinas was a church father in a time even before Protestantism emerged. Why did Acton describe him as such? It was undoubtedly because of the contributions Aquinas made to the fight for freedom. Similarly, if we look at a more recent period, Richard Hooker was also a Whig despite being a Catholic. What we need to understand from this is that the conservative politicians of the time truly approached religion purely from a political standpoint. They were not concerned with people’s personal beliefs. That’s why they defended King James, whom the opposition accused of treason, (For mainstream Tories) because of his sacred position and (For the Catholic Tory group) representation of Catholic superiority (The Pope). At the end of this tumultuous period, the Glorious Revolution of 1688 successfully took place, and the new government assumed power with limited authority under a new constitution (The Bill of Rights 1689). There was a connection to this in the example of Charles I’s execution.

Charles I had married Catholic Henrietta Maria in the early years of his reign, which was strongly opposed by the Protestant majority in the country. Unhappy with this and many other forms of opposition, Charles dissolved Parliament three times in four years, the first being in 1625. In 1629, he disbanded Parliament and became the sole decision-making authority. The reason for this was his desire to have a weak Parliament, similar to the Scottish system to which he was accustomed. This idea had already made Parliament uneasy even when he came to power. After these tumultuous periods, Charles was captured by the Scots and handed over to the English Parliament during the internal war that began in 1642. He was sentenced to execution by Parliament, and thus it was carried out. American Catholic conservatives depicted the king as a hero upon hearing of the event. When we look at history, it is difficult to call him a hero, but if one belonged to the same religion, they could definitely see him as a hero. American Puritans, on the other hand, depicted the king as a brutal tyrant, which was a realistic perspective. Also, as we mentioned before, we can clearly understand from this example that the fact that the king was a Protestant did not really mean anything to the Whigs.

Another reason why the politics of 17th and 18th century England deserve to be seen as a turning point in the conservative-liberal divide is the emergence of liberal thought in the same region and era. John Locke, considered the father of liberal thought, was a Whig and even a leading figure among the Whigs. He actively participated in the struggle against the conservative faction’s support for the absolute monarchy. He played a significant role in the successful outcome of the revolution and claimed that the British nation punished its traitors. However, when mentioning Locke in the political context of the time, we must not overlook a crucial detail. Locke’s boss and the reigning King at the time, James II, ordered the burning of Locke’s book that he had co-authored with Ashley Cooper, which contained significant criticisms of James’s absolutism. ^[7] As a result of this incident, Locke, had to flee to France to avoid being executed on the orders of King James, who was admired by conservatives. It was the conservative Tories who attributed and defended sanctity to the king who ordered the execution of the father of liberalism.

The conflict between the liberals and conservatives is not unique to Britain, but can also be observed in Spain. In 1808, during the French occupation of Spain by Napoleon, VII Ferdinand, who had recently ascended to the throne, consulted him on how to establish Napoleon’s rule. As a result, Ferdinand stepped down from the throne and was replaced by I. Jose (Joseph Napoleon). During this period, liberal members of certain local councils, who constituted the majority, were striving for a new constitution that would be considered the most liberal of the time. In 1813, upon VII Ferdinand’s return to the throne, accepting the new constitution was made a condition for his legitimacy, but he avoided explicit statements about it and only made vague remarks. While the pressure continued regarding the constitution, the other major political faction in the country, the conservatives, urged Ferdinand to reject it. They shouted slogans in the streets of Spain, claiming that religion was at stake, and tried to influence the political circles. While doing so, they emphasized the need to preserve the Roman Catholic Hierarchy, and their pressure indeed worked. Ferdinand first rejected the new constitution. Then, he had the liberal leaders who supported the constitution arrested and sent to exile. The liberals secretly organized a rebellion against Ferdinand’s absolutism, and with the help of the conservatives, they were captured while trying to land in Malaga, led by Jose Maria Torrijos. As we can see in Antonio Gisbert’s famous painting, Torrijos and his friends were executed by firing squad in Malaga in 1831, before they were brought to trial.

Despite such clear historical contradictions, conservatives did indeed once stand alongside libertarians in the political arena. This period occurred due to the political landscape shaped by President Roosevelt’s New Deal, which was announced after the Great Depression. Roosevelt’s new proposal marked a profound change in the American government. The system would now be more centralized and egalitarian. ^[8] Libertarians were among the staunchest opponents of this new order. Representatives of Austrian Libertarianism, such as Robert Higgs, acknowledged that the government had become a “Money pumping machine” under the New Deal and agreed with Wilhelm Röpke on this issue. ^[9] On the other hand, modern libertarians such as Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, and Murray N. Rothbard have fought against the welfare state throughout their lives. The conservative wing, known as the “Old Right,” emerged in opposition to these changes following the New Deal, just like the libertarians. This movement, which included figures like John Flynn and Garet Garrett, was born as a reaction to Roosevelt’s egalitarian and centralized policies. ^[10] In fact, Flynn had always identified himself as a liberal. Garrett even published an analysis of the New Deal with Rothbard. ^[11] Therefore, the Old Right truly was the companion of libertarians. The deteriorating alliance began parallel and connected to the rise of Soviet Communism. After World War II, while libertarians continued to defend their principles, the Right had different plans. After the war, conservatives shifted their focus entirely to the fight against communism. In the 1950s, the rise of McCarthyism led to a massive communist witch-hunt in America. ^[12] The means of this hunt were, of course, strict laws and state power. In his work “A Young Republican’s View,” William Buckley wrote:

We [new conservatives] have to accept Big Government for the duration—for neither an offensive nor a defensive war can be waged … except through the instrument of a totalitarian bureaucracy within our shores.

William Buckley ^[13]

As can be understood from here, conservatives after the war were in favor of using state power without hesitation. Meanwhile, Murray Rothbard, one of the leaders of libertarianism, condemned the state’s acquisition of income through repression and violence, as well as its interference in private property in his book “Anatomy of the State”. ^[14] Conservatives did not hesitate to apply disproportionate violence to famous politicians they saw as threats, without showing any sensitivity towards individuals or private property, which is the basis of libertarianism. ^[15] In fact, it is not difficult to understand the roots of conservatives’ attitude. Early representatives of conservatism were putting everything at stake to regain the power of feudal lords as feudalism slowly began to lose its power. In the Middle Ages, the biggest punishment for merchants who started to emerge and try to escape from feudal bureaucracy (And mostly from the influence of feudalism) by creating free trade zones and for those who were striving to escape from the influence of feudalism was imposed by the protectors of the old order, namely the feudal lords. ^[16] This desire for liberation would be the trigger for a series of events that would eventually lead to the end of feudalism. The feudal lords, defended by conservatives, claimed ownership over all the goods and people in a territory with a fictitious right bestowed by God. There was neither a way to acquire property as Locke defined it (Through labor) nor a contract. Those who refused to be their ‘Property’ were invariably killed. As we learn from Zygmunt Bauman and as our previous historical research shows, in the old times (Including the Middle Ages but still present in the new and recent times), freedom was a reward, a status symbol. Freedom was a privilege; it was used to distinguish between what is desired and what is contrary. ^[17] It is these modern representatives of the order, such as Buckley, who were fighting for the remnants of the feudal order. Libertarians, on the contrary, opposed freedom as a right and even united around it:

The libertarian creed, finally, offers the fulfillment of the best of the American past along with the promise of a far better future…libertarians are squarely in the great classical liberal tradition that built the United States and bestowed on us the American heritage of individual liberty, a peaceful foreign policy, minimal government, and a free-market economy.

Murray Newton Rothbard ^[20]

However, this tradition had also eroded over time. As Samuel Francis stated, the new right had captivated Middle Americans by advocating principles such as normality in sexuality, religiosity, and adherence to traditions. ^[13] Lords in the Middle Ages also justified their views in similarly. Their method of achieving these principles was, of course, unlimited state power. According to them, the use of state power was inevitable in shaping society in the desired direction. The method chosen by the new conservatives in the mid-1900s was to reward non-communism with (Limited) freedom and to subject communists to hell on earth. But is the freedom we set out to question initially present among these views? The answer is left to the reader A few years before the emergence of the new right, Ludwig von Mises seemed to know these things in advance. In Human Action, he wrote the following sentences:

However, the case is not so simple as that. Opium and morphine are certainly dangerous, habit-forming drugs. But once the principle is admitted that it is the duty of government to protect the individual against his own foolishness, no serious objections can be advanced against further encroachments. A good case could be made out in favor of the prohibition of alcohol and nicotine. And why limit the government’s benevolent providence to the protection of the individual’s body only? Isn’t the harm a man can inflict on his mind and soul even more disastrous than any bodily evils? Why not prevent him from reading bad books and seeing bad plays, from looking at bad paintings and statues and from hearing bad music? The mischief done by bad ideologies, surely, is much more pernicious, both for the individual and for the whole society, than that done by narcotic drugs.

Ludwig von Mises ^[18]

When writing these, he seemed like a modernized version of Locke. In “A Letter Concerning Toleration“, Locke argues that “The government cannot interfere with a person’s choice to be unhealthy” and continues by saying, “Even God does not protect people from their own free will” ^[19] However, conservatives take a completely opposite stance. In the issues of sexuality, normality, and adherence to tradition, conservatives believe that everyone should embrace these views and the government should play an active role. According to them, society should be shaped based on “Normality”, and any kind of violence in pursuit of this goal is acceptable. Can conservatives, who plan to protect individuals against themselves, be associated with libertarians? However, I must add that it would be wrong to say that conservatives always support state power. They truly are the biggest enemy of state power if it is used against their wishes. They never compromise on this, and perhaps the only consistency they have is this opportunistic stance.

Despite knowing their history, conservatives and libertarians have often been associated with each other since the 1970s. In fact, joint political movements have emerged, and some have even claimed that the libertarian movement emerged from within conservatism. This is largely due to Lew Rockwell gaining a strong following after praising conservatives while outlining a political roadmap for Libertarianism. Even relatively late, such as in 1990 (When statism of the new conservatism was already well-known), Rockwell stated that conservatives should be allies with libertarians. ^[21] However, our evaluation seems to indicate the opposite. We have seen many historical events and quotes that show conservatives have not hesitated to use state power to assert the validity of their ideas. This has been proven many times, and it is quite simple to further deepen the empirical origins of this claim that we have logically constructed. Even today, it is still possible to test this issue.

In conclusion, conservatism has consistently stood against liberalism throughout history and maintained its own political existence. Even before socialist ideas emerged, conservatives were already seeking ways to eliminate liberals (Classical liberals and libertarians). Murray Rothbard named these methods “Conservative means”. ^[22] According to him, the reason why socialists cannot defend freedom is because they have adopted conservative means (such as statism and centralization) on the path to freedom. Socialists often began to behave like conservatives and distanced themselves from libertarian movements: ”Most socialists (Fabians, Lassalleans, even Marxists) turned sharply rightward, completely abandoned the old libertarian goals and ideals of revolution and the withering away of the State and became cozy conservatives permanently reconciled to the State, the status quo, and the whole apparatus of neomercantilism, State monopoly capitalism, imperialism, and war that was rapidly being established and riveted on European society at the turn of the twentieth century.”. ^[23] Therefore, the relationship between the radical liberal tradition and conservatism that we aim to discuss contains a clear opposition. The radical liberal tradition -which influenced the libertarian movement- has largely risen against conservatism and built its antagonism upon it. Trying to pick up the identifications of the libertarian view -that criticizes socialists for their conservative means- with conservatism seems like an obvious oxymoron.

Resources

1. ^{BOOK CHAPTER} Berlin, I. (1958). Two Concepts of Liberty (pp. 2-5). Oxford University Press.
2. ^{BOOK CHAPTER} Rothbard, M. N. (2009). Eşitlikçilik: Doğaya Karşı İsyan. (p. 31). Liberte Yayınevi.
3. ^BOOK Rothbard, M.N. (2019). Left and Right: The Prospects for Liberty. Mises Institute.
4. ^{BOOK CHAPTER} Oakeshott, M. (1950). Patriarcha and Other Political Works. By Sir Robert Filmer. Edited by Peter Laslett (pp. 34-35). Philosophy.
5. ^BOOK Bjork, R.E. (2010). The Oxford Dictionary of the Middle Ages. Oxford University Press.
6. ^BOOK Novak, M. (1989). The Catholic Whig Tradition. Crisis Magazine.
7. ^{BOOK CHAPTER} Brewer, H. (2017). Slavery, Sovereignty, and Inheritable Blood: Reconsidering John Locke and the Origins of American Slavery (p. 1054). The American Historical Review.
8. ^BOOK Henry, J.F. (2018). Reflections on the New Deal: The Vested Interests, Limits to Reform, and the Meaning of Liberal Democracy. Levy Economics Institute.
9. ^{BOOK CHAPTER} Higgs, Robert. (1987). Crisis and Leviathan: Critical Episodes in the Growth of American Government (p. 12). Oxford University Press.
10. ^BOOK Blanchette, J. (2004). Libertarianism, Conservatism, and All That. Mises Institute.
11. ^BOOK Garrett, G., & Rothbard, M. N. (1980). The Great Depression and New Deal monetary policy. San Francisco, Calif: Cato Institute.
12. ^BOOK Storss, L.R.Y. (2015). McCarthyism and the Second Red Scare. Oxford Research Encyclopedias.
13. ^{BOOK CHAPTER} Hoppe, H. H. (2022). Buckley, W. F. (1952). A Young Republican View. The Commonweal. In The Intellectual Incoherence of Conservatism. Mises Institute.
14. ^BOOK Rothbard, M.N. (1974). Anatomy of the State. Mises Institute.
15. ^{BOOK CHAPTER} Hoppe, H.H. (2022). Sosyalizm ve Kapitalizm -Bir Teori- (pp. 99-105). Liberus Kitap.
16. ^{BOOK CHAPTER} Eco, Umberto. (2014). Ortaçağ Barbarlar, Hristiyanlar, Müslümanlar (pp. 284-287). Alfa Yayınları.
17. ^{BOOK CHAPTER} Bauman, Z. (2020). Özgürlük (pp. 17-18) Ayrıntı Yayınları.
18. ^{BOOK CHAPTER} Mises, L.V. (1998). Human Action (pp. 728-729). The Ludwig von Mises Institute.
19. ^{BOOK CHAPTER} Locke, J. (2017). Hoşgörü Üzerine Bir Mektup (pp. 50-51). Liberte Yayınevi.
20. ^{BOOK CHAPTER} Rothbard, M. N. (2006) For A New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto (p. 402). The Ludwig von Mises Institute.
21. ^BOOK Rockwell, L.H. Jr. (1990) The Case for PaleoLibertarianism. Liberty.
22. ^{BOOK CHAPTER} Rothbard, M. N. (2009). Eşitlikçilik: Doğaya Karşı İsyan. (pp. 19-21). Liberte Yayınevi.
23. ^{BOOK CHAPTER} Rothbard, M. N. (2009). Eşitlikçilik: Doğaya Karşı İsyan. (p. 20). Liberte Yayınevi.