We Must Make The Building Of A

I Use Throughout The Term 'liberal' In The Original, Nineteenth-century Sense In Which It Is Still Current In Britain. In Current American Usage It Often Means Very Nearly The Opposite Of This. It Has Been Part Of The Camouflage Of Leftish Movements In This Country, Helped By Muddleheadedness Of Many Who Really Believe In Liberty, That 'liberal' Has Come To Mean The Advocacy Of Almost Every Kind Of Government Control.

We Have Indeed At The Moment Little Cause For Pride: As A Profession We Have Made A Mess Of Things.

The Task Of The Political Philosopher Can Only Be To Influence Public Opinion, Not To Organize People For Action. He Will Do So Effectively Only If He Is Not Concerned With What Is Now Politically Possible But Consistently Defends The "general Principles Which Are Always The Same." In This Sense I Doubt Whether There Can Be Such A Thing As A Conservative Political Philosophy. Conservatism May Often Be A Useful Practical Maxim, But It Does Not Give Us Any Guiding Principles Which Can Influence Long-range Developments.

Unlike Liberalism, With Its Fundamental Belief In The Long-range Power Of Ideas, Conservatism Is Bound By The Stock Of Ideas Inherited At A Given Time. And Since It Does Not Really Believe In The Power Of Argument, Its Last Resort Is Generally A Claim To Superior Wisdom, Based On Some Self-arrogated Superior Quality.

The Confidence In The Unlimited Power Of Science Is Only Too Often Based On A False Belief That The Scientific Method Consists In The Application Of A Ready-made Technique, Or In Imitating The Form Rather Than The Substance Of Scientific Procedure, As If One Needed Only To Follow Some Cooking Recipes To Solve All Social Problems. It Sometimes Almost Seems As If The Techniques Of Science Were More Easily Learnt Than The Thinking That Shows Us What The Problems Are And How To Approach Them.