“The most effective way of making everybody serve the single system of ends toward which the social plan is directed is ti make everybody believe in those ends.”
F. A. Hayek
Part 2 – Words and Warnings For Conservatives
What does it mean to be conservative? That is one of the underlining topics addressed by Hayek.
Any modern analysis of Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom, requires discussion of two major points. The first is the use of words. He, like Orwell and others, see the appropriation of certain terms or the redefining of words as a serious offense on the road to a totalitarian state. The second issues a warning to conservatives to avoid becoming like the left.
What’s in a Word?
The words we use matter. It has been observed by conservative intellectuals that leftist are altering the meanings of words and inventing new words in order to trick people into supporting their ideas. This occurred during the 1930s across Europe as part of the socialist and fascist takeover of the continent. It occurred during Moa’s revolution in China. Orwell vividly used the tactic in his famous Nineteen Eighty-Four when describing the “Ministry of Truth” and describing the constant “updating” of history to reflect the state’s dictates.
We see this tactic at work again today. Special interest groups are determined to redefine simple words like gender, racism, science, and others.
“Freedom” Hijacked
Socialist hijacked the word freedom and used it to mean “freedom from hardship.” The true idea behind freedom is liberty, but to the socialist, progressives, and globalist, it’s different. The promise of the altered meaning is free from worry. The trick is to buy votes by promising people something for nothing.
Hayek views the Left and the Right as sharing the same hostility towards freedom and free enterprise. “What in effect unites the socialist of the Left and the Right is this common hostility to competition and their common desire to replace it by a directed economy.” The hostility of which he speaks is in both economic and social terms. It’s evident in all who claim to be a champion of rights by arguing you must give up your property, money, rights, and independence for the greater good.
Words like freedom are so easily perverted. Free from suffering, oppression, harm, etc. is the bait, but those who bite are hooked on a slippery slope to government dependence – the antithesis of freedom.
“Freedom” Still Up for Grabs
The word freedom was recently used on campaign signs across South Carolina by Democratic candidates. Two candidates come to mind: one was running for Governor and the other state house. In both instances, their campaign websites advocated for more spending, more taxing, more programs, and more reforms. These candidates can be many things – caring, advocates for equality, open minded – but they are not advocates for freedom. Freedom means less government intrusion in our lives, reduced taxes, fewer programs, more self-reliance and personal responsibility.
The claims by these two candidates are unequivocal misrepresentations. This type of word appropriation occurs across the country. The only response is fighting to maintain the proper and honest definitions of very basic words. Conservatives cannot capitulate on very simple truths, among them is that words have meanings and we must all stick to those very well defined meanings.
As a final observation, be careful when using the word liberal to describe a globalist, progressive, or member of the Democratic party. The term in a classical sense does not apply because those folks are anti-liberty – they want to take what hard working men and women have made to enrich their power and give it to those who don’t work as a bribe. We should not now, and we should have never, let the leftist misappropriate this term. Let’s claim classical liberal thought as part of the conservative movement.
A Warning to Conservatives
An astute observation comes from Hayek’s 1956 revised forward to the book. In defining the term “liberalism,” he observes:
“I use throughout the term ‘liberal’ in the original, nineteenth-century sense in which it is still current in Britain. In current American usage it often means very nearly the opposite of this. It has been part of the camouflage of the leftist movements in this country, helped by the muddleheadedness of many who really believe in liberty, that ‘liberal’ has come to mean the advocacy of almost every kind of government control. I am still puzzled why those in the United State who truly believe in liberty would not only have allowed the left to appropriate this almost indispensable terms but should even have assisted by beginning to use it themselves as a term of opprobrium. This seems to be particularly regrettable because of the consequent tendency of many true liberals to describe themselves as conservatives.
It is true, of course, that in the struggle against the believers in the all-powerful state the true liberal must sometimes make common cause with the conservative, and in some circumstances, as in contemporary Britain, he has hardly another way of actively working for his ideals. But true liberalism is still distinct from conservativism and there is danger in the two being confused. Conservatism, though a necessary element in any stable society, is not a social program; in its paternalistic, nationalistic, and power-adoring tendencies it is often closer to socialism than true liberalism; and with its traditionalistic, anti-intellectual, and often mystical propensities it will never, except in short periods of disillusionment, appeal to the young and all those others who believe that some changes are desirable if this world is to become a better place. A conservative movement, by its very nature, is bound to be a defender of established privilege and to lean on the power of government for the protection of privilege. The essence of the liberal position, however; is the denial of all privilege, if privilege is understood in its proper and original meaning of the state granting and protecting rights to some which are not available on equal terms to others.”
In these lines Hayek revels a troubling side of conservativism. This brand of conservativism is more interested in preserving the existing situation than fighting for individual liberty, free market capitalism, or just outcomes. Maintaining existing fundamentals makes sense to conservatives but refusing to update existing laws or practices does not.
Much of life is balance. Healthy outcomes arrive when we balance our body’s muscles, balance our meals, we balance work and play, balance investment portfolios, balance between strict parenting and soft. So too with government, balance is good.
Liberalism, according to Hayek, includes individual freedom, free markets, and other ideas cherished by conservatives.
We also read an opportunity. Somewhere between elitism on the one hand and the conservatism described above, is a balancing point. A devotion to classical principals, balanced by openminded classical liberal ideas, might be the middle way.
Put another way, the global elites and unimaginative conservatives are equally closed minded. Both display totalitarian tendencies – “if you don’t wave this flag, you’re an enemy of the state.” Between these two poles are open minded conservatives. Most of the United States is devoted to our democratic republic and our founding ideals of “liberty and justice for all.” These are conservative values, and the way conservatives win elections is by staying true to conservative principals while remaining open to classical liberal ideas – liberty, competition of ideas, free markets, and limited government.
This is how Reagan and Nixon each won 49 states. Ward off the closed minded and totalitarian tendencies that sometimes weed their way into conservative politics, and our nation will prosper.
The Republican Party in 2023
Gerald F. Seib of The Wall Street Journal recently wrote, “Some Republicans want the party to break from its longtime free-market agenda and focus instead on the needs and frustrations of workers. Others see danger in moving away from the legacy of Reagan.” His point is that there is a fracture in the party with dueling sides arguing for two different roads ahead.
These diverging roads are exactly what concerned Hayek about conservatives. The one road is based on freedom and liberty, free-market capitalism, limited government, and free speech. The other questions the Laissez -faire posture of the GOP and too often vilifies those with different opinions. Its main aim is proving its way of life is correct, and proponents are eager to do whatever necessary to win.
As the party grapples with loses in the past three election cycles, the Republicans will have to define themselves. One question will decide its direction: Is the Republican party still the party of liberty and justice for all?
In answering the question, it’s worth remembering one of Hayek’s main concerns: “The most important change which extensive government control produces is a psychological change, an alternation in the character of the people…even a strong tradition of political liberty is no safeguard…”
