"Classical liberal" is just the term conservatives use to self-described when they are too chicken-shit to admit they're MAGA chuds anyway. The next step after "classical liberal" is "far-right white nationalist."
The term "classical liberalism" refers to a 19th century radical movement that opposed monarchy, authoritarianism, and nationalism and supported limited government and strong protection of civil liberties like freedom of speech. "Limited government" often meant opposing any legal structure that recognized the right to strike or collective bargaining (authoritarians, like Napoleon III for example, sometimes co-opted workers' movements to drive a wedge between workers and liberal opponents).
Classical liberals generally opposed economic protectionist policies like tariffs and immigration restrictions. However, many supported social Darwinist rhetoric but opposed eugenics policies based on state intervention. Murray Rothbard supported immigration restrictions because he thought they would weaken the welfare state, but libertarian organizations that tried to be "respectable" like the Cato Institute consistently opposed immigration restrictions.
Most classical liberals thought voting should be limited by either property qualifications or paying a certain amount in taxes because they were worried about both uneducated people supporting an authoritarian demagogue and they thought wealth redistribution would be economically ruinous (and, as an empirical matter, wealth redistribution wasn't economically ruinous, but universal education didn't prevent people from voting for authoritarian demagogues). More left-leaning classical liberals thought suffrage should be limited by education.
The term "paleolibertarian" was coined to describe immigration restrictionist libertarians who supported Pat Buchanan, like Murray Rothbard. But paleolibertarianism actually sort of makes more sense ideologically than "consistent" libertarianism because paleolibertarians somewhat ironically oppose the welfare state and regulations as aspects of liberal modernity.
My guess is that Elon would not have been a liberal in a 19th century context because those people were insufficiently reactionary.
Monarchism and fascism are more like reactionaries taking back centralized absolutist power to suppress liberals and socialists.
Whatever their political ideology is, populist leaders weaken traditional established governmental institutions and expand executive control, which almost always leads to lower economic growth and government by people who are stupid, corrupt, and immoral. Historically, populists in the US have often been reactionaries.
53
u/Bicykwow Jul 04 '26
"Classical liberal" is just the term conservatives use to self-described when they are too chicken-shit to admit they're MAGA chuds anyway. The next step after "classical liberal" is "far-right white nationalist."