Jonathan Chait had an interesting article in TNR (sub req’d) the other day. The main thrust is that liberalism is based upon empircism while conservatism is based on an ideology:

And not because conservatives are necessarily more stubborn. (Indeed, on an individual level, liberals may well be just as stubborn as conservatives.) Rather, conservatism, unlike liberalism, overlays a deeper set of philosophical principles. Conservatives believe that big government impinges upon freedom. They may also believe that big government imposes large costs on the economy. But, for a true conservative, whatever ends they think smaller government may bring about–greater prosperity, economic mobility for the non-rich–are almost beside the point. As Milton Friedman wrote, “[F]reedom in economic arrangements is itself a component of freedom broadly understood, so economic freedom is an end in itself.”

We’re accustomed to thinking of liberalism and conservatism as parallel ideologies, with conservatives preferring less government and liberals preferring more. The equivalency breaks down, though, when you consider that liberals never claim that increasing the size of government is an end in itself. Liberals only support larger government if they have some reason to believe that it will lead to material improvement in people’s lives. Conservatives also want material improvement in people’s lives, of course, but proving that their policies can produce such an outcome is a luxury, not a necessity.

I think that’s probably true, more on it in a minute.

At TCS today, Arnold Kling has a response. Essentially, he lists some areas where he thinks liberals are wrong. Doing this, he seems to miss the point. Chait wasn’t claiming conservatism is based on ideology because conservatives are wrong and liberalism is based on empiricism because liberals are right. He was claiming that liberalism has no underlying philosophy beyond improving the “human condition” as he puts it, while conservatism has the underlying philosophy that small government is good in and of itself. If Kling wants to construct a compelling response, he should outline an underlying philosophy of liberalism that mirrors conservatism’s “small government as an end in and of itself” idea.

Now, can that be done? I don’t think so, but I’m a liberal. Chait correctly notes that the mirror if conservatism would be socialism, where the capitalist hierarchy is considered to be inherently unfair and exploitative. Liberals of the kind Chait means (who would probably be defined as moderate Democrats out to a portion of the Green party) don’t have this objection, as they are proponents of capitalism.

Also, is the philosophy underlying conservatism actually based on empiricism rather than simply philosophical? Now, many conservatives believe that small government is good simply because it improves the human condition, based on empirical evidence. I wonder how much the Friedman quote (”[F]reedom in economic arrangements is itself a component of freedom broadly understood, so economic freedom is an end in itself.”) from Chait’s article really represents conservatism. It’s probably impossible to tell. Anyone that has the underlying philosophy probably has convinced themselves of conservatism’s truth to the degree that the underlying philosophy is then unecessary. That seems to be part of the point Chait is making.