Edmund Fawcett’s books on the history of liberalism and conservatism take as their fundamental difference their stances toward social change. In Fawcett’s essay, he wrote,
Liberalism responded to a novel condition of societies, energised by capitalism and shaken by revolution in which populations were growing fast and where, for better or worse, material and ethical change was now ceaseless.
One might say that the liberal disposition is to embrace and manage social change. The conservative disposition is to resist and reverse social change.
In the essay on liberalism, Fawcett wrote,
Four ideas in particular seem to have guided liberals through their history.
The first is that the clash of interests and beliefs in society is inescapable. Social harmony, the nostalgic dream of conservatives and the brotherly hope of socialists, is neither achievable nor desirable – because harmony stifles creativity and blocks initiative. Meanwhile conflict, if tamed and put to use as competition in a stable political order, could bear fruit as argument, experiment and exchange.
Secondly, human power is not to be trusted. . .
Progress for the better is both possible and desirable. . .
Finally, the framework of public life has to show everyone civic respect, whatever they believe and whoever they are.
Fawcett argues that neither conservatives nor radicals can accept these ideas. Conservatives believe that traditional societies were harmonious in the past. Radicals believe that harmony can be achieved in the future through socialism.
Regarding power, Fawcett says that conservatives urge that we submit to authority, and radicals believe that they must take power, at least until the revolution has created the new utopia.
Conservatives have doubts about progress, and radicals see progress as something that they must direct.
Conservatives have resisted giving equal rights to everyone, and radicals believe that some people’s rights (the privileged) must be reduced in order to give others the rights they deserve.
A few more thoughts:
1. Fawcett’s definition of liberalism is capacious. It can include economic liberty. But it also includes “taming” the market, which seems to be the point of his essay.
2. The difference between merely embracing change and managing change is a major divide between libertarians and others. The Cato Institute’s Human Progress embraces change. The idea of managing change is implicit in the Obama slogan “hope and change,” in Mariana Mazzucato’s The Entrepreneurial State, and in the Communist idea of a “vanguard” leading the proletariat.
3. In his latest book, on conservatism, Fawcett takes the view that conservatism is stupid and backward. Conservatives are always saying that change will have terrible results, and yet things work out. Conservatives opposed integration and civil rights, and those worked out. They opposed feminism, and that worked out. Etc.
A conservative would say that liberals’ memory is selective. They have forgotten that they once embraced eugenics as a way to achieve social progress. They have forgotten that Prohibition backfired. They have forgotten that they once said of the Soviet Union “I have seen the future and it works.” They have forgotten their support for Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. They have overlooked the decline of living standards and freedom in Cuba.
Looking ahead, it may be too early to tell about the effects of some changes. The warnings about the adverse effects of affirmative action seem to me to be accurate, but the left wants to double down on it. Same with the decline of religion, the traditional family, and child-bearing. We have not seen the dire consequences of deficit spending yet, but that does not mean that we will escape dire consequences.
Perhaps if you read his books, you will find that when Fawcett gets into specific intellectual histories he is even-handed. But in his overall characterization of the two sides he is not. Instead, he comes very close to defining any positive feature of society as liberal and any bad idea for social arrangements as conservative.