[detbuch]

QUOTE=wdmso;1108826]Liberalism is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality.

Classical liberalism is closer to that view than modern liberalism. Classical liberalism is expressed succinctly in the philosophy of John Stuart Mill. In the classical sense, liberty is the individual's right to live his/her own life in the way he/she sees fit, and is free to do or say whatever he wishes so long as it doesn't deprive others of the same freedom, or so long as it doesn't directly and actually harm someone else. And equality is solely before the law. Classical liberals have no pretentions of any other equality or of equal outcome for all. In classical liberalism liberty and equality (except equality before the law) are actually antithetical--equality of outcome, of view on life, of action or anything other than before the law must be forced and actually limits or destroys liberty.

Modern liberalism is closer to Marxian philosophy wherein equality is expressed in group or collective rights more than in individual rights. Its notion of liberty is that which is regulated by society or, more accurately, by government. It is weighted more toward equality rather than liberty. And its version of equality goes well beyond that of classical liberalism. It seeks to impose an equality of thought and outcome on the masses, breaking down the privilege of the few or of one defined group over another. Its tendency is to limit or eventually to eliminate private property. The modern liberal sees property as owned by the community (the village and ultimately the State). It views personal success as being made possible by the functions of government (the State) rather than by the efforts of individuals.

Conservatism (or conservativism) is any political philosophy that favours tradition (in the sense of various religious, cultural, or nationally-defined beliefs and customs) in the face of external forces for change, and is critical of proposals for radical social change.
[/QUOTE]

Just as current-day "liberals" are not really liberal, at least not in the classical sense, "conservatives" are not really conservative. Both "liberals" and "conservatives" are offshoots of the original classical liberalism, but they both got to where they are today through the founding era of progressivism. One is just more progressively to the "left" than the other. The difference has been described as a sociological one rather than a philosophical one which is based on first principles, or on principles at all.

If there is such a thing as an American classical political conservative, it would, in my opinion, be one who wishes to conserve the founding principles of this country, which primarily includes the Constitution and the constitutional order which was entirely based on classical liberalism.

Modern "conservatives" profess doing so while at the same time often acting like progressives and even like "liberals" but from different sociological or economic views.

If you're really in favor of true (classical) liberalism you should want to conserve our Constitution and fight against its subversion and destruction. The paradox is that such "conservatism" (more properly called neo-classical liberalism) would preserve, or re-institute, real liberalism by "favo[ring] . . . [nationally-defined rule of law]) in the face of external forces for change, and is critical of proposals for radical change [in our system of government]" Such a conservatism would restore individual liberty and equality before the law.