In that it’s out there being discussed, it’s a very heartening read. I meant to get this out a few days ago, but I couldn’t get the time to write this up until now. Skip, thanks for finding and sharing Dr. Rahe’s piece. It reminds me of many things, I’ll touch on just a few.
First my answer to Skip’s last question in his post: there must be, if we’re to survive with liberty. I don’t believe that conservatives and libertarians are that far apart at our core. But I do believe there will always be a constant re-drawing of the line between what is and is not a function of the state when conservatives and libertarians debate. I think that’s good. Our dogma is not settled and probably, hopefully, never will be; that’s what makes us more vibrant than the left. And I think most of the disagreements can be resolved with Federalism. Now, onto a few thoughts.
Though F.A. Hayek is often claimed by the libertarians as one of their own, I believe for the exact reason mentioned in Rahe’s article he belongs in the conservative realm. He did believe in what he called the Extended Order, which, in a nutshell, is the application of Adam Smith’s Invisible Hand to social traditions, mores, and virtues. It is the understanding that pieces of wisdom pass down through history because, by definition, they were beneficial to a society’s success. Society thrived and flourished because of innumerable things learned and inculcated into a society and eventually were done so subconsciously. Things that weren’t beneficial were pruned away and withered. Traditions, behaviors, and virtues evolved and hardened. It is precisely these traditions that enable a long and transcendent view of a society, and why they must be cherished. And resistance must be applied when it is sought to remove, deviate, or pervert them for the immediate illusory gain– which brings us to Burke and Montesquieu, but I digress.