Integral genuine liberalism is distrustful of the omnicompetencenand omniscience of governments. More fundamentalneven than that is the recognition that a good society isnone made up of numerous independent institutions, pursuingndiverse objectives, or not pursuing any objective at all,nbut being their own justification for existence. I think herenabove all of the family, churches, universities, clubs, andnvoluntary associations. Each has its own rationale and ownntasks which cannot be performed by government.nThe tradition of liberalism, which is older than collectivistnliberalism, acknowledges the centrality of the family, whichnin turn requires respect for authority within the family. Itnacknowledges the fundamental importance of the autonomynof ecclesiastical and educational institutions. It appreciatesnrespect for law and for the authority that enacts and enforcesnlaw. It is in favor of “law and order”; it knows that societynwill disintegrate without it and it knows that individual andninstitutional freedom cannot exist without law and order.nCollectivist liberalism denies religious authority, exceptnwhen it puts religious faith aside and is active in progressivenpolitical causes. Genuine liberalism acknowledges the obligationsnto one’s country; collectivist liberalism is contemptuousnof patriotism. Conservative liberalism believes thatntradition has a presumptive claim to respect. Collectivistnliberals think that traditions of moral life and order arensuperstitions that should be replaced by “moral education”nin which every person decides for himself what is right.nLIBERAL ARTSnJUST THINK HOW MUCH HUMEnWOULD HAVE LIKED JERRY RUBINn14/CHRONICLESnThere is a Set of Men lately sprung upnamongst us, who endeavour to distinguishnthemselves by ridicuHng everynThing, that has hitherto appear’d sacrednand venerable in the Eyes of Mankind.nReason, Sobriety, Honour, Friendship,nMarriage, are the perpetual Subjects ofntheir insipid Raillery: And even publicnSpirit, and a Regard to our Country, arentreated as chimerical and romantic.nWere the Schemes of these Antireformersnto take Place, all the Bonds ofnSociety must be broke, to make Way fornthe Indulgence of a licentious Mirth andnGaiety: The Companion of our drunkennFrollics must be prefer’d to a Friendnor Brother: Dissolute Prodigality must bensupply’d at the Expence of every Thing ,nvaluable, either in public or private: AndnMen shall have so little Regard to anynThing beyond themselves, that, at last, anfree Constitution of Covernment mustnbecome a Scheme perfectly impracticablenamong Mankind, and must degenerateninto one universal System of Fraudnand Corruption.n—from “Of Moral Prejudice”nby David HumennnWhat is the proper name for this genuine liberalism? Itnis not conservatism of the old type that believes innthe unity of church and state. It is not conservatism of thentype that affirms the right of the great hereditary landownersnto rule over society. It is not monarchist, except in countriesnthat have been monarchical for a long time. Should it bencalled “individualist liberalism”? Perhaps, except that genuinenliberalism thinks that individualism should be qualified innthe face of familial obligations, religious authority, the neednfor social order, and the obligations of nationality andnpatriotism. Should it be called conservative liberalism? Thatnwould not be wrong. It would do justice to the individualismnof classical liberalism and our devotion to public liberties andnit would also do justice to its high evaluation of social ordernand law-abidingness, to its respect for religious traditions. Itnwould also do justice to an interpretation of freedom thatnenables us to avoid the antinomianism — the hatred of lawnand self-restraint—-to which collectivist liberalism is sonsympathetic.nYet we must be circumspect about the use of the wordn”conservative” and above all with the repulsive neologism,ncoined “neoconservatism” or “neocons,” by the collectivistnliberals who wish to disparage the resurgence of good sense,ngenuine liberalism, and reasonable conservatism in the pastnseveral decades.nConservatism has got a very bad name in the UnitednStates because of the long dominion in intellectual circles ofna polemical collectivist liberalism. To adapt the observationnof Mr. Dooley about the loyalty of the Democrats of then22nd ward to the Democratic Party, that they would soonerndie than be buried by a Republican undertaker, so Americannintellectuals in the main have been so loyal to the principlenof collectivist liberalism that they would sooner die than benburied by a conservative undertaker.nThe spectrum of political ideas is not a one-dimensionalnone, with “left” at one end and “right” at the other. It is ancomplex constellation of many dimensions. Attachment tonexisting institutions and practices as such is not conservatism,nas we can see in the Soviet Union, and the desire tonchange them, as again we can see in the Soviet Union, is farnfrom liberalism. Nor does a desire to destroy the existingninstitutions of a free society equal liberalism — although, asnthe inglorious events of the late 1960’s show, many personsnwho called themselves and still call themselves liberals giventheir blessings and their resources to persons who wish tondestroy the institutions of a free society.nTo allow the collectivist liberals to monopolize the namenof liberalism permits them to obscure but their ownncollectivism, and it also permits them to deny the attachmentnof their more conservative adversaries — ourselves —nto public liberties. Collectivist liberalism is very far from thentraditions of individualistic, conservative, or constitutionalnliberalism, which inherits the tradition of Edmund Burke,nAlexis de Tocqueville, Max Weber, Frank Knight, RaymondnAron, and Professors Hayek and Popper.nI began these remarks by emphasizing that one could benserious like Richard Weaver without being boring. I fear thatnI have shown that seriousness can be boring and that it mightnalso miscarry into frivolity as well. I thank you for yournindulgence.nn