Citat:
Du har rätt i att klassisk liberalism inte är synonym med svensk socialliberalism. Locke, Smith och Friedman förespråkade frihet under ansvar och minimal stat, men just därför blir den oförenlig med nationalkonservatismen. Nationalkonservatismen bygger på kollektiv identitet, bevarande av kultur och stark statlig kontroll av värderingar och gränser. Liberalismen bygger på individens rätt att själv välja kultur, tro och livsstil, så länge man inte kränker andras frihet.
Att klassiska liberaler vill begränsa välfärdsberoende invandring är inte samma sak som att de vill ha kulturellt homogen nationalism. Det handlar om ekonomisk självförsörjning, inte etnisk eller kulturell exkludering. Nationalkonservatismen däremot gör just kultur, tradition och nationell enhet till politiska mål, något som liberalismen i grunden motsätter sig.
Så nej, jag syftar inte på "sosse-liberalism", utan på den principiella skillnaden mellan fri individ och styrd nation. Det är den konflikten som gör ideologierna oförenliga, oavsett hur mycket man försöker gifta ihop dem i efterhand.
Att klassiska liberaler vill begränsa välfärdsberoende invandring är inte samma sak som att de vill ha kulturellt homogen nationalism. Det handlar om ekonomisk självförsörjning, inte etnisk eller kulturell exkludering. Nationalkonservatismen däremot gör just kultur, tradition och nationell enhet till politiska mål, något som liberalismen i grunden motsätter sig.
Så nej, jag syftar inte på "sosse-liberalism", utan på den principiella skillnaden mellan fri individ och styrd nation. Det är den konflikten som gör ideologierna oförenliga, oavsett hur mycket man försöker gifta ihop dem i efterhand.
Klassisk liberalism betonar individens frihet, nationalkonservatism betonar det etniska/kulturella kollektivet, men det finns ingenting som gör dem oförenliga.
Jag pallar inte att göra original-research här, men jag ställde frågan till ChatGPT efter några frågor om de ovan nämnda tänkarna:
Fråga:
Is National Conservatism (protecting a collective cultural/ethnic heritage, traditions and national unity) incompatible with Classical Liberalism? Did any of the abovementioned thinkers espouse elements of National Conservatism, thusly defined, or explicitly reject them?
Svar, extremt nedkortat:
👉 National conservatism and classical liberalism are not inherently incompatible, but they are in tension — classical liberalism emphasizes individual liberty, while national conservatism emphasizes collective identity.
However, most of the Enlightenment liberals did accept some version of national particularism: they saw culture, religion, and tradition as shaping the political community. None of them advocated a borderless, cultureless cosmopolitanism in the modern progressive sense.
Svar för varje tänkare inom spoiler:
🧑 John Locke — Liberal universalism within a national framework
Locke grounded legitimate government in individual natural rights, but:
He assumed a shared cultural and religious context (English Protestant society).
His concept of the social contract presupposed a bounded community with common laws and traditions.
He tolerated dissent within limits (e.g., he famously excluded atheists and Catholics from full tolerance in A Letter Concerning Toleration).
Locke viewed the polity as a voluntary association, but it can preserve its identity by deciding who to admit.
📝 Implication: Locke would likely see protecting national cultural identity as legitimate, so long as it is done through consensual political action and doesn’t violate basic rights.
✅ Elements compatible with national conservatism.
⚖️ Montesquieu — Cultural particularism
Montesquieu explicitly argued that laws should reflect the “spirit of the nation” — shaped by climate, history, religion, and customs (The Spirit of the Laws).
He believed political systems must fit the character of their peoples, and that attempts to impose foreign models lead to tyranny or collapse.
This is almost a textbook national conservative idea.
📝 Implication: Montesquieu didn’t advocate nationalism in the 19th-century sense, but he believed in the preservation of national identity and traditions as politically necessary.
✅ Strong alignment with national conservatism.
🕊️ Voltaire — Cosmopolitan but not cultureless
Voltaire was cosmopolitan in outlook — admired England, traveled widely — but:
He did not reject the idea of national cultural character.
He mocked fanaticism and intolerance, but valued French high culture and believed in cultural superiority in a Eurocentric sense.
He admired societies that integrated foreigners who adapted to local norms, not those that abandoned their cultural cohesion.
📝 Implication: Voltaire would support openness if national character is preserved — but he would not advocate dissolving it.
✅ Moderate alignment with national conservatism (cultural preservation), with cosmopolitan leanings.
🧠 David Hume — Cultural continuity as foundation of liberty
Hume tied political stability to social cohesion and shared manners:
“It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once.” (Of the Liberty of the Press)
He saw shared habits and cultural continuity as essential for the functioning of a free society.
Hume was skeptical of radical social change and had a conservative temperament, even as a liberal on commerce.
📝 Implication: Hume would almost certainly support preserving national culture and unity as a precondition for liberty.
✅ Strong elements of national conservatism.
💰 Adam Smith — Civic identity and stability
Smith was a cosmopolitan in economic thought, but:
He praised national attachments as socially useful.
He viewed a stable cultural framework as necessary for markets and civil society to function.
He was wary of excessive cosmopolitan detachment:
“The man of system… is apt to be very wise in his own conceit, and is often so enamoured with the supposed beauty of his own ideal plan… that he does not consider that the pieces upon the chess-board have no other principle of motion besides that which the hand impresses upon them.” (Theory of Moral Sentiments, VI.2)
📝 Implication: Smith would oppose forced cultural homogenization or radical transformation; he would support a liberalism embedded in national identity.
✅ Compatible with national conservatism.
🕯️ Immanuel Kant — Cosmopolitan law with national sovereignty
Kant famously advocated “cosmopolitan right”, but:
He distinguished between universal moral law and the right of nations to self-determination.
He defended the right of political communities to refuse settlement and preserve their own political order (Perpetual Peace).
Kant also tied moral progress to specific “civilized nations” (Eurocentric and national in conception).
📝 Implication: Kant would support national sovereignty and cultural preservation, within a moral framework of respecting other nations’ equal rights.
✅ Compatible with national conservatism (in a constitutional, rule-based form).
🪙 Thomas Paine — Universalist but republican nationalist
Paine is trickier:
He was an ardent universalist and saw rights as inherent to all humans.
But he was also a republican nationalist: he supported the American and French national revolutions, tied to national self-determination.
He didn’t advocate abolishing national identities — he believed in free nations coexisting.
He would oppose state-enforced cultural homogeneity, but not the right of a nation to preserve its own civic culture.
📝 Implication: Paine fits a liberal civic nationalism model more than cultural nationalism.
✅ Partial alignment with national conservatism (political, not ethnic).
Locke grounded legitimate government in individual natural rights, but:
He assumed a shared cultural and religious context (English Protestant society).
His concept of the social contract presupposed a bounded community with common laws and traditions.
He tolerated dissent within limits (e.g., he famously excluded atheists and Catholics from full tolerance in A Letter Concerning Toleration).
Locke viewed the polity as a voluntary association, but it can preserve its identity by deciding who to admit.
📝 Implication: Locke would likely see protecting national cultural identity as legitimate, so long as it is done through consensual political action and doesn’t violate basic rights.
✅ Elements compatible with national conservatism.
⚖️ Montesquieu — Cultural particularism
Montesquieu explicitly argued that laws should reflect the “spirit of the nation” — shaped by climate, history, religion, and customs (The Spirit of the Laws).
He believed political systems must fit the character of their peoples, and that attempts to impose foreign models lead to tyranny or collapse.
This is almost a textbook national conservative idea.
📝 Implication: Montesquieu didn’t advocate nationalism in the 19th-century sense, but he believed in the preservation of national identity and traditions as politically necessary.
✅ Strong alignment with national conservatism.
🕊️ Voltaire — Cosmopolitan but not cultureless
Voltaire was cosmopolitan in outlook — admired England, traveled widely — but:
He did not reject the idea of national cultural character.
He mocked fanaticism and intolerance, but valued French high culture and believed in cultural superiority in a Eurocentric sense.
He admired societies that integrated foreigners who adapted to local norms, not those that abandoned their cultural cohesion.
📝 Implication: Voltaire would support openness if national character is preserved — but he would not advocate dissolving it.
✅ Moderate alignment with national conservatism (cultural preservation), with cosmopolitan leanings.
🧠 David Hume — Cultural continuity as foundation of liberty
Hume tied political stability to social cohesion and shared manners:
“It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once.” (Of the Liberty of the Press)
He saw shared habits and cultural continuity as essential for the functioning of a free society.
Hume was skeptical of radical social change and had a conservative temperament, even as a liberal on commerce.
📝 Implication: Hume would almost certainly support preserving national culture and unity as a precondition for liberty.
✅ Strong elements of national conservatism.
💰 Adam Smith — Civic identity and stability
Smith was a cosmopolitan in economic thought, but:
He praised national attachments as socially useful.
He viewed a stable cultural framework as necessary for markets and civil society to function.
He was wary of excessive cosmopolitan detachment:
“The man of system… is apt to be very wise in his own conceit, and is often so enamoured with the supposed beauty of his own ideal plan… that he does not consider that the pieces upon the chess-board have no other principle of motion besides that which the hand impresses upon them.” (Theory of Moral Sentiments, VI.2)
📝 Implication: Smith would oppose forced cultural homogenization or radical transformation; he would support a liberalism embedded in national identity.
✅ Compatible with national conservatism.
🕯️ Immanuel Kant — Cosmopolitan law with national sovereignty
Kant famously advocated “cosmopolitan right”, but:
He distinguished between universal moral law and the right of nations to self-determination.
He defended the right of political communities to refuse settlement and preserve their own political order (Perpetual Peace).
Kant also tied moral progress to specific “civilized nations” (Eurocentric and national in conception).
📝 Implication: Kant would support national sovereignty and cultural preservation, within a moral framework of respecting other nations’ equal rights.
✅ Compatible with national conservatism (in a constitutional, rule-based form).
🪙 Thomas Paine — Universalist but republican nationalist
Paine is trickier:
He was an ardent universalist and saw rights as inherent to all humans.
But he was also a republican nationalist: he supported the American and French national revolutions, tied to national self-determination.
He didn’t advocate abolishing national identities — he believed in free nations coexisting.
He would oppose state-enforced cultural homogeneity, but not the right of a nation to preserve its own civic culture.
📝 Implication: Paine fits a liberal civic nationalism model more than cultural nationalism.
✅ Partial alignment with national conservatism (political, not ethnic).
TL; DR: Locke, Montesquieu, Voltaire och Hume hade explicita inslag av nationalkonservatism i sin liberalism, Smith och Kant betonade det inte men såg bevarandet av kulturer etc som legitima intressen. Paine "would oppose state-enforced cultural homogeneity, but not the right of a nation to preserve its own civic culture" och är därmed den ende som kommer i närheten av att se dem som oförenliga. (Paine är också den ende som jag personligen inte läst någonting alls av.)
Sedan följde ju John Stuart Mill m.fl. Ska vi ta en titt på vad han har att säga om saken?
"Free institutions are next to impossible in a country made up of different nationalities. Among a people without fellow-feeling, especially if they read and speak different languages, the united public opinion necessary to the working of representative government can not exist."
Jag kunde fortsätta. Din tes att klassisk liberalism är oförenlig med nationalkonservatism är inte bara felaktig, den är totalt felaktig. Såväl klassiska liberaler som nationalkonservativa har tvärtom tenderat att se poänger i den andra ideologin och ta dem till sig.
Dagens vänsterliberalism är däremot oförenlig med båda ideologierna.
