Reply To: Conservatives vs Traditionalists. What are we?

[Anonymous]

#1345

I think that we need to sort of what we think the labels mean, first, and then decide how we can agree on what lies behind those labels.

First: personally I use the word ‘traditionalist’ for the specific purpose of distinguishing myself from a conservative. ‘Conservative’ has historically meant many different things – conservative used to mean Monarchist, now it means Constitutional Monarchist (in Oz); liberals were the ones who come up with free speech, now they’re trashing it. However, I do apply the ‘conservative’ label to myself when the situation suits, but traditionalist seems to have a more well-anchored meaning with which I feel more affinity. Of course, that meaning still needs to be defined.

I’m in 100% agreement with the principles of the Melbourne traditionalist site. However, point 4 is curious, because there’s a lot of meat in it which they don’t go into. In effect, by rejecting everything going back as far as “right liberalism”, they’re advocating per-Enlightenment values, or ‘traditional Christian values’, as I also do. But why haven’t they come out and said it outright?

My gravest concern, and I’ll put it right here, for all to see: I fear that our group will have troubles in the future, in the divide between traditionalists and right-liberals. So I don’t particularly want to pursue expanding the group by admitting large numbers of ‘right liberals’ just for growth’s sake. However, that said, I think we’re all a bunch of very smart guys, and if anyone can sort it out, it’s us. So, perhaps we should commence an intellectual discussion on the merits of right liberalism? afterliberalism – not to use your words against you, but you yourself have admitted that it’s Enlightenment values which have led directly to the mess we’re in today. So do you think it’s wise to (arguably) dilute the group’s resolve by allowing in more libertarian ideas? I don’t mean this as a rebuke or criticism, but as an honest question.