Traditional Catholics and Classical Liberalism

[ILikeAugustine]

In anticipation for this year's installment of the annual "Monarchy vs. Democracy" brawl...

I have noticed that many American trads (on FE and elsewhere) are ardent classical liberals.  Look at all the Ron Paul supporters on this site alone.  Does anyone have a hypothesis as to why so many trads are paleocons?

[SickBoy]

Well, in the American context, it's kinda hard to think of who the rightful monarch would be, so the most peaceful solution would probably be some sort of constitutional republic, more consistent with classical liberalism.  Also, because we're currently ruled by a secular regime, it makes sense that we would want that government to be as small as possible.

[trident59]

Amazing observations, sickboy. I believe I've seen this somewhere before. (if we can keep it)

[Catholic777]

I dont think all or even most trads are even "classical" liberals. They're one group, thankfully, that doesnt seem to buy into the modern "liberal-conservative" spectrum (which is all really just classically liberal). I think you'll find trads pretty far right and supportive of the ancien regime. Farther right than is even on the radar to most Americans. I certainly am.

But, again, as someone pointed out, most of us are in America. So...it's sort of hard to imagine installing an ancien regime monarch. Especially since this isnt a majority Catholic country. And in a non-Catholic country...the next best policy for Catholics is probably non-intervention in our lives by the government, so that if we cant practice the Faith with explicit state sanction and endorsement and support (the ideal, but not really possible in a technically mission country)...at least we can practice it without harrassment.

[spasiisochrani]

Also, because we're currently ruled by a secular regime, it makes sense that we would want that government to be as small as possible.

It seems to me that any government should be as small as possible.

[Archbishop_10K]

Good topic.

I'm more of an ancien regime type of guy myself, but it would be idiotic to wholly embrace everything the ancien regime represented. There are two main types of errors that people make when looking into past society: either a.) they think everything was better "in the good ol' days", or b.) they think our ancestors were all barbarians and we've advanced so far ahead. As with most things, the truth is really somewhere in the middle.

A great number of ancien regime idealist types on forums like FE would actually hate their lives if they were suddenly transported to, say, Spain under the reign of Philip II. If they were peasants (as the vast majority of people were at that time) living in the cities, their diet would consist of meager government rations of cheap bread and cheese; then they would b--ch to the King about the government being communist or something, LOL, as if they actually had civil rights. No amount of romanticizing would change the fact that if you were a peasant in pre-modern society, your life probably sucked.


A smarter thing to do, rather than break it all down to monarchy vs. democracy, is to learn from the Enlightenment, taking the good and throwing out the bad. That's what the Early Church Fathers did with Greco-Roman philosophy. As for myself, I'll take a traditional monarchy with Christian foundations, and then improve it with certain ideas from the Enlightenment such as constitutional law, civil rights, meritocracy, the scientific method, and Smithian economics; and I'll leave secularism, nationalism, mass conscription and colonialism at the door. Likewise, with certain aspects of ancien regime life which are just stupid, I'd get rid of absolutism, strict primogeniture, Aristotelian "science" (what the heck?), and mercantilism.


I'd definitely keep the powdered wigs, though. That's the most important part. Powdered wigs make your government smarter.

[SoonerCatholic]

I'd definitely keep the powdered wigs, though. That's the most important part. Powdered wigs make your government smarter.

  Now that made me laugh!

[Cephas]

Well, there's also the concept of subsidiarity. The lowest competent authority should take care of things and deal with problems by themselves, and voting for Ron Paul-esque  platform sticks more closely to that. It also puts some emphasis back on self-sufficiency, and those who obviously don't want it will either die out or change.

[Catholicmilkman]

I have noticed that many American trads (on FE and elsewhere) are ardent classical liberals.

You are very ignorant of most/many American traditional Catholics if you really believe this. As knowledgeable Catholics most here don't like or want any sort of liberalism which is among the worst heresies and sins.

Look at all the Ron Paul supporters on this site alone.  Does anyone have a hypothesis as to why so many trads are paleocons?

I don't support Ron Paul for his classical liberalism or modern philosophy but for his many practical and good stances on so many issues; such as being against the Federal Reserve, U.N., corrupt government agencies, the suppression of much that is within true liberty (such as drinking/selling unprocessed organic milk, alternative energy, running a business out of house-which by the way is illegal in my city), and quasi-support of just war doctrine and subsidiarity, etc. His religious liberalism and Smitho-Austrian capitalism are two things of his philosophy I don't support and wish he didn't either but then who's perfect? He could change his mind, and probably would, more easily than any of the others. Among a choice of men I'll pick the good-willed inculpably ignorant true liberalist than the outright CFRists, Skull & Bones, etc, etc who only pretend to be liberalists for their evil agendas.

[ILikeAugustine]

I have noticed that many American trads (on FE and elsewhere) are ardent classical liberals.

You are very ignorant of most/many American traditional Catholics if you really believe this. As knowledgeable Catholics most here don't like or want any sort of liberalism which is among the worst heresies and sins.

Classical liberalism is simply a belief in limited government and individual freedom.  That's not heresy.  Maybe you are confused by the term liberal, which has been usurped by modern liberals.

Most, if not all, of Ron Paul's stances on the issues you've named are rooted firmly in classical liberalism.