“He who won’t be ruled by God will be ruled by tyrants.” Patrick Henry

I would say that classical liberalism in American tradition embraced that elevation in the valuation of liberty along with the risky task of sorting out how government and the cultural value system should change in order to appropriately embrace it. There were conservatives in that day and there still are in this who believe that this was an ill-advised risk, that any form of liberalism is a radical error in Western tradition. The Revolution itself was radical change. The period that followed seems to chart a course between the radicals like Tom Paine and the virtuous society republicans. That’s what I personally think of as American classical liberalism. There are cyclic periods of more radical liberalism and radical conservatism throughout our history.

For those of us who identify classical liberalism as a productive catalyst in American tradition, but have a conservative nature — I.e., we cherish this tradition, give deference to it and want to preserve it — we are subject to an antinomy: conserving liberalism. The pure liberal-rejecting conservative has a conundrum too, how to reconcile his/her American patriotism with its Revolution, new form of government and liberalizing history. So I have to question whether we should use the term Conservative categorically as we are trying to do in popular parlance.

We might ask whether those born into traditions quite incompatible with ours — for example: Chinese communism or Saudi Islamism — are conservatives because they follow principle 2. Then we might disqualify them on account of 1, or 7 or 8.  But aren’t these actually values in our tradition that we have elevated to an essential status by calling them principles? Kirk makes good sense to me when he sets out to articulate a unifying American identity that many of us are inclined to cherish and embrace. He superbly articulated shared values that are essential to this common experience of our cherished America. I’m not satisfied that he articulated a set of principles for sorting out of the mix of Americans a political category of human being called Conservative. To the extent that he set out to do so perhaps he disregarded his own better judgment. So I prefer to read these "principles" in the prior sense.

The rankly common meaning of the term "conservative" describes one who is reluctant to embrace change and who favors preserving traditional values and customs. That makes for a simple contrast with the progressive who eagerly pursues change in pursuit of perfection. Thomas Sowell in his book "A Conflict of Visions" elaborates on this and related differences at length. He contrasts ways of viewing nature, man and society which seem to underpin our most salient modern political division and gives them coherence under what he terms the "constrained" vs. the "unconstrained" vision. He perhaps fails to meet his objective of offering a rigorous theory of the foundations of our political identities but I submit that it comes closer to the purpose than this application of Kirk.

For the 9th Christians should embrace this because they understand that man is fallen and therefore subject to the passions of man and the abuse of power that comes with that. In a biblical sense I would direct them to the failures of Saul and David, both were great kings but both did wrong when they succumbed to their passions. David went so far as to send a man to the front lines of combat in order to sleep with his wife.

The 10th principles should also come easily to a Christian because it balances tradition with progress. This could be related to the vision Paul had of the table with all the foods on it. Prior to that vision believers thought they had to follow the older laws concerning food, upon revelation from God through Paul’s vision all foods became clean.

Additionally every principle listed is a balance to every other principle, you might say it is better to view them as a whole rather than parse them individual. In short each reinforces the other in some way.

Ultimately we share the same view: the many groups need each other, not just to keep real, government-fetishizing authoritarians from taking office, but to complement each other. The question, too, is where are the groups willing to yield in order to build a coalition?

You say, and I am paraphrasing, that the founders threw off tradition to insure freedom. This is true to the extent that they went away from their immediate past, but they also lean on the knowledge of the ancients and the forms of government of the Greeks and Romans and the British and combined parts of each to form a new government that would insure greater freedom.

I would relate this to the 10 principles in Kirk’s list, the reconciliation of Permanence and Change.

emphasis each places on ideas v. culture

I am not sure that the principles as a whole give more emphasis to one over the other. Explain that a bit more for me, if you would?

I’d argue that classic liberalism was (and is) driven by ideas, and a rejection of the status quo. Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations, the Declaration of Independence, utilitarianism. The idea that an American becomes an American by pledging allegiance to a set of ideals, rather than by national origin. Different though these examples are, each rejects the way that the world has worked. Each strives towards human freedom at the expense of tradition. Each is, in an important way, a contribution of classic liberalism.

This is not to say that classic liberalism is perfect. As with any form of liberalism, hubris is a problem. Burke, for instance, might point out that for every advance wrought by classic liberalism (e.g., the American Revolution) there is at least one terror (the French Revolution).

That’s why I’ve always tended to think that classic liberals and conservatives belong together. There is undeniable tension between the two. The world views can be contradictory. But the tension is useful, because each brings something different to the table. The result could be a vibrant Republican party.

While there is a lot of overlap between modern conservatism and classical liberalism, there are differences between them.

Thomas Paine was certainly no conservative. Neither was Thomas Jefferson. However, both were Classical Liberals. As was George Washington.

I think the realm of classical liberalism is large enough to encompass certain aspects of conservatism (being conservative makes one a classical liberal in many respects) but being a classical liberal does not necessary make someone a conservative.

I believe that if you ask the man on the street to put a name and a face to conservatism it will be Rush Limbaugh.

It is my wish and hope that the time will come when you ask the man on the street to put a name and a face to conservatism, and it will be Bo Snerdley