The model I advocate has three elements: socialism as the guiding principle in the economy; liberalism as the guiding principle in politics; conservatism as the guiding principle in culture. I have already said something about socialism. From liberalism I want to keep the emphasis on individual differences and on individual liberty, and drop the emphasis on a 'right to property' (although material reward for achievment [sic] is not necessarily a bad thing). I think that the liberals' emphasis on property-rights is logically independent of the concern for individuality and the concern for individual liberty, even if they didn't think so. Conservatism: Bell remarks that religious rituals are one way of preserving shared affections and sentiments across generations, and that these are what hold any society together. More specifically, in traditional societies the traditions and rituals both express that one consciously shares attitudes and feelings with one's fathers, grandfathers . . . and teach each new generation to share them. Today we are living in the most anti-historical of all ages. People don't share 'affections and sentiments' with past generations—they scarcely share 'affections and sentiments' with each other, except for hedonistic ones, which hardly produce much cohesion or much worth while. I think that one can revise traditions to eliminate racist, or male chauvinist, etc. elements; I think one can respect other traditions while standing in one oneself; but that whatever kind of future we may have some respect for the value of traditions will necessarily be a part of it.
So far I have only argued that socialism in the economy, liberalism in politics, conservativism [sic] (in the sense of valuing tradition) in our culture are separately good. I have not argued that they are compatible. In fact, I think they are more than compatible; I think they are interdependent. (Which is not to deny that one can have hard choices in particular situations, as with any set of two or more different values.) I don't think, for example, that one can have socialism in a good sense without both liberalism and conservativism [sic]. But I must leave that to be defended on some other occasion.
(Hilary Putnam, "A Note on 'Progress,'" Erkenntnis 11 [January 1977]: 1-4, at 3-4 [italics in original])
