{"id":532122,"date":"2026-04-17T07:30:00","date_gmt":"2026-04-17T05:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/leregardlibre.com\/?p=532122"},"modified":"2026-04-19T22:54:48","modified_gmt":"2026-04-19T20:54:48","slug":"liberal-conservatism","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/leregardlibre.com\/en\/philosophy\/liberal-conservatism\/","title":{"rendered":"A possible form of liberal-conservatism"},"content":{"rendered":"

Consecrating a heritage whose core is individual liberty, liberal-conservatism can form a coherent synthesis rather than a fragile compromise. Here is an outline, drawing on Burke, Scruton and Kolnai as well as 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 - for which I thank the organizers.[1]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

In its most rigorous sense, liberalism is a political ideology that postulates the value of individual freedom as the only properly political value. In this sense, the state is at best legitimate only insofar as it guarantees this freedom, by preventing individuals from constraining each other. This conception is in line with a logic of negative freedom - the absence of constraints - and is clearly distinct from contemporary visions that multiply \u00abrights to\u00bb or assign politics a mission of global emancipation. Liberalism invites individuals to improve themselves - but not the state to do it for them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Il importe encore 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

Thus, the burden of proof lies with the proponent of change, not the proponent of the status quo. However, the conservative does not advocate immobilism in the same way as the liberal. On the one hand, preserving a heritage means standing up against anything that might harm it. On the other hand, as Hungarian philosopher Aurel Kolnai argues, there's nothing wrong with creating something of value by copying what we already know.<\/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 violent revolutions<\/em>freedom and tradition are sure to fall victim.<\/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 \u2013 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

Hence our defense of decentralization: the closer the government is to local realities, the better it understands them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n