Presumably, Dr. Feser was referring to liberalism either in the general sense of the dominant tradition of Western political thought, that stretches from Locke onwards. Or he just meant social and cultural liberals. I would call Harris liberal on both these fronts. The only issue I can think he might stand out from many Americans liberals is that of war in the Near East. But military adventurism is one of the hardest issues to situate on the political spectrum.   ​

It seems obvious that Dr. Feser is not an expert on Islamic history and thought. I noticed some of the errors, or contested points, you pointed out, seigneur. But can we really expect him to an expert on Islam? As internet commentators, we of all people should know how dull it would be if we had to be experts on everything we commented on. I thought his posts on the subject were interesting and food for thought. We can't really ask for more.

seigneur wrote:

Liberalism is typically contrasted with conservatism. If liberalism means center-right core policies of both parties (which seems to be applicable to all policies in the United States), then what is conservatism?

http://www.kirkcenter.org/index.php/detail/ten-conservative-principles/
 

iwpoe wrote:

The property principal should be well qualified. Traditionally, most conservatives would be opposed to corporatist ideas and think the market as potentially destructive to society as anything else: Rand and libertarian sentiment more generally are to be distinguished from conservatism on that score.

Would one traditionally consider distributist ideas within conservative thought or not?

​I would. The distributists, and  indeed the whole tradition of Catholic Social Thought, were strongly influenced by the French counterrevolutionary tradition of writers like Bonald, De La Tour Du Pin, Le Play​.

I don't think a conservative has to subscribe to the whole distributist program. I find that contemporary distributists get their priorities a little wrong. Many seem to see widespread property ownership as an end instead of a means to other social and cultural goals. But I think that there are general principles of distributism and similar movements that mix well with traditional conservatism. Indeed, to me they seem simply traditional conservatism applied to economics. These principles are: widespread familial ownership of real property; an economy in which small and medium sized businesses, especially family ones, are very important; a good degree of regionalism and localism, in economics as well as politics and society/culture; a proper rural-urban balance and a heathy rural society; less priority given towards consumerism, growth, and the development of technology and more to morality, religion, culture, and what Russell Kirk called the permanent things.

Of course, free market economics is important to conservatives too. Traditional conservatives are no fans of socialism or too much meddling in the economy by the state, especially the centralised state. Though they can sometimes be simplistic or dogmatic (Keynes or whoever is not proved wrong simply because what he writes, if true, is inconvenient for a free marketeer), free market economists have important insights. But the traditional conservative cannot support Manchesterism in its entirety. There are free market economists who straddle the boundaries between conservatism and classical liberalism, like Ropke and even Hayek to a degree.
 

Jeremy Taylor wrote:

seigneur wrote:

Liberalism is typically contrasted with conservatism. If liberalism means center-right core policies of both parties (which seems to be applicable to all policies in the United States), then what is conservatism?

http://www.kirkcenter.org/index.php/detail/ten-conservative-principles/
 

 
So neocons are liberals. Who knew?

(A better term for the described principles would be traditionalism, I suggest.)

Jeremy Taylor wrote:

seigneur wrote:

 
So neocons are liberals. Who knew?

I thought it was common knowledge that many started out as liberals or leftists and blended their liberalism with conservatism.

 ​Personally, I wouldn't judge movements simply on their foreign policy.

 
Neither do I. On the political arena, the role of conservatives is (simply, if you like) to bicker with liberals.

Just like there are no permanent inherent core liberal values in politics (as Feser has demonstrated very convincingly in his analysis time and again), there are also no inherent core conservative values. The common element of conservative policies is either to thwart an alleged threat from liberals or to oppose the current liberal slogan for no particular reason. Pro-life versus pro-choice, pro-war versus anti-war, pro-hoarding versus pro-spending, etc. Nevermind the nature of the issue of life/choice, war/peace and hoarding/spending, nevermind the particular outcomes and effects of the agenda.

Conservatives in politics serve no other purpose than to be in virtual opposition to liberals. They are each others' mirror images, both equally fluid, essenceless.

Sustaining the actual core values and observing the continuity of the society would be traditionalism, something that normally doesn't exist in politics. It would take an actual statesman to do it. But there are no statesmen these days. We only have politicians.