I understand where Reno is coming from, but his friend, who harasses him about the free-market and community is more on the mark than he would like to admit.  I think his casual divorcing of “social” and “economic” and “political” is fairly pedestrian, and it seems to me he is interpreting what the current popular understandings of liberalism and conservatism are. 

But there are a couple complaints I have.  First, I wonder if he’s aware of the work done in psychological circles about “conservatism” and “liberalism.”  There is clearly an authoritarian mindset in modern conservatism, (Say, the book, Authoritarianism and Polarization in American Politics).  Second, his view is not quite conservative - it is Manichean, which seems to have some relationship to authoritarianism itself. 

Last, in our current situation in the senate the fact is a minority can use tactics to hold the majority hostage.  That’s not quite authoritarianism. 

Conservatism is perfectly correct when it comes to human nature’s depravity and need for location.  Unlike the abstract model offered by the free-marketeers, people are not really rational nor are they measurably consistent.  It has a strong critique of utopian world views. 

He is perfectly right about our inheritance of Rousseau.  But I don’t see why a liberalism that traces its care to Burke is impossible.  After all, Burke believed in political freedom (a liberal hallmark) and was an anti-imperialist. 

His main problem, of course, is that true liberalism has very little “content.”  It merely believes in the following:  individuals have intrinsic moral worth; self-respect is a good; individuals can change their minds.  But outside of this, liberals can disagree with each other. 

I wonder what Fran Gamwell would say.