I have been trumpeting Red Toryism as a legitimate alternative to liberal libertarianism and liberal statism. I think, at bottom, what makes it different from both are three commitments. First is  its commitment to the Catholic social principle of subsidiarity–that government should be no bigger than the challenge it seeks to take on. (This makes Red Toryism look like socialism or libertarianism depending on the social issue being discussed, and therefore confusing the heck out of lots of people on both sides). Second, its commitment to slow, incremental change through inherited institutions. The cost of sweeping social experiments–I hope the 20th century teaches us–is always too high. Third, its commitment to personal responsibility and virtue. There can be no public square, no polis, without a recognition that the public man or woman needs to be formed to be a virtuous man or woman. And government, while it can and must defend those pre-political institutions that inculcate virtue, cannot in fact teach it itself. Anway, a major 20th century figure who expresses these themes far better than I is Vaclav Havel. A recent essay on him by George Weigel can be found here. Let me know what you think!