Hayek rejected ideological purity tests among the Society’s members

Evidence

In June 1947, Crane wrote to Hayek that he was disappointed by reports (likely coming from Leonard Read of FEE) that there were “accepters of collectivism” at Mont Pèlerin: “Are you quite sure that all of the American members, as I know some of them to be, are quite dependable?” Hayek responded with a warning against the “tendency to create an unreasoning orthodoxy which treats traditional liberal principles as a faith rather than a problem on which reasonable people may differ.” — Philip Mirowski & Dieter Plehwe (eds.), The Road from Mont Pèlerin, 1451

Categorization

• DEFINE: Hayek’s statement is an instructive capsule definition of classical liberalism as an open research program rather than a creed — a useful articulation for anyone defining the term.
• XREF: Hayek’s ‘liberal principles as a problem, not a faith’ stance connects to wider arguments in foundational neoliberalism historiography about the network’s tolerance of internal disagreement (e.g. Plehwe, Mirowski) versus later portrayals of a monolithic neoliberal orthodoxy. — connects to: Hayek dropped anti-engineer rhetoric for political expediency, not principle — Philip Mirowski, Never Let a Serious Crisis Go to Waste, 1920; Hayek deliberately included ideologically-neutral members to widen coalition appeal — Philip Mirowski & Dieter Plehwe (eds.), The Road from Mont Pèlerin: The Making…, 757; Hayek designed the Mont Pèlerin Society as a closed ideological academy — Philip Mirowski, Never Let a Serious Crisis Go to Waste, 193 (+1 more)

Broader Connections

• Hayek designed the Mont Pèlerin Society as a closed ideological academy #contradicts (0.90) — Philip Mirowski, Never Let a Serious Crisis Go to Waste, 193
• Hayek founded a closed society to repair classical liberalism’s conceptual flaws #contradicts (0.85) — Philip Mirowski & Dieter Plehwe (eds.), The Road from Mont Pèlerin, 120