National Review on Buckley: “When Buckley started National Review…it was not at all obvious that anti-Communists, traditionalists, constitutionalists, and enthusiasts for free markets would all be able to…prevail over what seemed at the time to be an inexorable COLLECTIVIST tide.”

Seems clear enough to me…

James, I disagree. Both political philosophies have a social aim; liberalism/progressivism aims at moving towards a better society, and conservatism at maintaining a stable one. They differ in the emphasis, and the onus, they place on the individual vs. the society.

Contemporary American liberalism/progressivism is the more statist and socialistic philosophy–it’s a top down approach. Liberals believe that if we can improve society, individuals will benefit; that’s why liberals support all kinds of state intervention in the lives of individuals (welfare, universal health care, affirmative action, and the like.) Mark Richardson, for example, writes at Conservative Central that “Left liberals…are strongly statist, believing in a high level of government intervention in both society and the economy.” You’ll have a hard time convincing me that the leaders of the Democratic Party don’t support an expansive role for the state, including higher taxes and a plethora of social programs. That’s why knowledgable observers call them socialists.

Contemporary American conservatism is more individualistic–it’s a bottom up approach. Conservatives believe that if we give the individual more freedom, and more responsibility, society will benefit; that’s why conservatives oppose most state intervention in the economy or in the lives of individuals. In contemporary America, conservatives fight for a smaller government, individual responsibility, entrepreneurial freedom, and dismantling the welfare state. Some confusion may result from the fact that in the US, individualism is a traditional institution that’s under attack from the left these days.

We’re dealing with some very loose labels here. What Americans call “conservatism” in the present day was once called “classical liberalism.” Then there’s the split between “libertarian conservatism” (much, much more individualistic) and “social conservatism.”

Richard Hudleson notes in Modern Political Philosophy that classical liberalism shouldn’t be confused with what is referred to as “liberalism” in the US, since classical liberalism is closer to what we call “conservatism” in the U.S. Our liberals follow John Dewey and FDR; our conservatives do indeed follow John Stuart Mill, as well as John Locke and Adam Smith.

How bizarre! You seem to believe that conservatives are followers of J.S. Mill. It is my duty to inform you that you are utterly mistaken. Conservatives place society ahead of any individual.