{"id":532122,"date":"2026-04-17T07:30:00","date_gmt":"2026-04-17T05:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/leregardlibre.com\/?p=532122"},"modified":"2026-04-18T11:07:49","modified_gmt":"2026-04-18T09:07:49","slug":"liberal-conservatism","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/leregardlibre.com\/en\/philosophy\/liberal-conservatism\/","title":{"rendered":"A possible form of liberal-conservatism\u00a0"},"content":{"rendered":"

Consecrating a heritage at its heart is individual liberty, liberal-conservatism can form a coherent synthesis rather than a fragile compromise. Here is a sketch, drawing as much on Burke, Scruton and Kolna\u00ef as on Smith, Tocqueville and Hayek.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

Rather than a lukewarm or incoherent compromise between two doctrines, liberal-conservatism can be a solid articulation between two fundamental intuitions. This is the hypothesis I tried to defend last month in Lausanne, at the Ligue vaudoise. Here is the heart of my argument, enriched by the fruitful discussions that this event allowed \u2013 for which I would like to thank the organizers once again.1<\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Liberalism<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Dans son sens le plus rigoureux, le lib\u00e9ralisme est une id\u00e9ologie politique qui postule la valeur de la libert\u00e9 individuelle et qui en fait la seule valeur proprement politique. En ce sens, l\u2019Etat n\u2019est tout au mieux l\u00e9gitime qu\u2019en tant qu\u2019il garantit cette libert\u00e9, en emp\u00eachant les individus de se contraindre mutuellement. Cette conception s\u2019inscrit dans une logique de libert\u00e9 n\u00e9gative \u2013 l\u2019absence de contraintes \u2013 et se distingue clairement des visions contemporaines qui multiplient les \u00abdroits \u00e0\u00bb ou assignent \u00e0 la politique une mission d\u2019\u00e9mancipation globale. Le lib\u00e9ralisme invite les individus \u00e0 s\u2019am\u00e9liorer \u2013 mais pas \u00e0 l\u2019Etat de le faire \u00e0 leur place.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Il importe \u00e9galement de pr\u00e9ciser ce que le lib\u00e9ralisme ne dit pas. Le lib\u00e9ralisme ne pr\u00e9dit pas d\u2019\u00e9volution in\u00e9luctable du monde: le futur est ouvert \u2013 il n\u2019y a pas de \u00absens de l\u2019histoire\u00bb, ou alors, s\u2019il en existe un, nous ne pouvons pas le conna\u00eetre par avance. Le lib\u00e9ralisme s\u2019abstient \u00e9galement de proposer une soci\u00e9t\u00e9 parfaite. Car, m\u00eame \u00e0 supposer qu\u2019une telle soci\u00e9t\u00e9 existe et qu\u2019il n\u2019y aurait besoin de contraindre personne pour faire advenir cette configuration id\u00e9ale, le lib\u00e9ral se demande bien comment on pourrait savoir avec certitude en quoi elle consiste. Le lib\u00e9ralisme se limite \u00e0 une th\u00e9orie de l\u2019Etat, qui permet \u00e0 ses citoyens de dessiner par eux-m\u00eames les contours de leur vie et donc de la soci\u00e9t\u00e9. Tel que d\u00e9fini ici, le lib\u00e9ralisme n\u2019est donc pas un progressisme, au m\u00eame titre que le conservatisme.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Conservatism<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Conservatism, on the other hand, aims to preserve the things we already have. experienced the value<\/em>. Tradition is one of them. This is why conservatives are very attached to notions of transmission or continuity. This ideology recognizes a form of wisdom in what exists<\/em> rather than in what could<\/em> or should<\/em> exist. Similarly, practices or objects that have stood the test of time have some presumption in their favor. Conservatism is therefore only valid all other things being equal<\/em>. He breaks with the rationalist approach to politics, which is the art of defining a political line on the basis of discovered principles. a priori<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ainsi, la charge de la preuve revient au partisan du changement, et non au partisan du statu quo. Pour autant, le conservateur ne pr\u00f4ne pas l\u2019immobilisme, au m\u00eame titre que le lib\u00e9ral. D\u2019une part, pr\u00e9server un h\u00e9ritage implique de se dresser contre ce qui vient lui nuire. D\u2019autre part, il n\u2019y a pas de mal \u00e0 cr\u00e9er des choses de valeur en copiant celles que nous connaissons d\u00e9j\u00e0, comme le soutient le philosophe hongrois Aurel Kolnai.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What they both oppose<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Since liberalism is not progressivism, nor conservatism immobilism, it is not absurd to envisage, if not their compatibility, at least the form that their conciliation or synthesis might take. To do this, we need to look at the similarities between these two schools of thought.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

First, a common refusal of r\u00e9volutions violentes<\/em>: la libert\u00e9 et la tradition en sont des victimes assur\u00e9es.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Liberalism and conservatism also express the same distrust of politics as an instrument of social transformation. The state has no role in shaping individuals, families and businesses according to a single model. It merely provides a framework for their own development.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Thus, a clear distinction is drawn between the state and civil society - the latter being a complex web of institutions, practices and attachments that does not merge with public bodies and is rich in acquired experience, enabling it to function.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

D\u2019o\u00f9 aussi une d\u00e9fense de la d\u00e9centralisation: plus le pouvoir est proche des r\u00e9alit\u00e9s locales, mieux il les comprend.<\/p>\n\n\n\n