conservatism - the state knowledge flashcards

1. The state as organic

Conservatives see the state having emerged organically to fulfill a human need. It wasn’t ‘invented’ by a king or political philosopher.  It ‘grew naturally’, because it was required. This need came from the movement of humans beyond simple hunter-gather family or clan groups.  As humans began to group together in early proto-civilisations in Mesopotamia around 4000 BC, the state emerged too - as a requirement for such groupings to function.  Just as …

the state began organically, so it has then organically changed over time depending on need.  (Note the difference from the Liberal idea of humankind ‘building’ a state from scratch e.g. after the American Revolution). All conservatives believe in the need for the state.  It is clearly necessary - because it exists.  If it wasn’t needed it wouldn’t have evolved in the first place. If it wasn’t still needed, it would have died out by now.

1. The state as organic - the new right perspective: However the New Right strand do have a different attitude towards the ‘modern welfare state’.  They see the expanded role the state adopted after WWII as being negative - interfering in individual freedoms, removing individual responsibility & distorting the economic marketplace. Their argument is that this type of state did not organically develop this way. Instead ….

 the state was ‘hijacked’ by socialist and one nation conservative consensus policies in the post-war period… As a result the New Right sought to ‘reset’ the state back to its ‘natural organic state’ - predating the modern welfare state.  Thatcher in Britain in the 1980s talked of ‘rolling back the state’ whilst Trump’s policies since 2025 (e.g. federal job cuts and the work of ‘DOGE’) is another example of believing the modern expanded role of government arrived as a result of ideological decision making,not from an organic need.

2. The state doesn’t emerge from ‘natural society’ (i)

Liberals, socialists & anarchists all have a positive view of the ‘natural society’ i.e. the human society that pre-dated the creation of the state. In liberalism Locke believed human beings had been able to live together without a state, bound together by mutual understanding of ‘common rights’ and ‘common laws’ all people owned simply by virtue of being human.  However Locke believed this situation doesn’t emerge from ‘natural society’…

Liberals, socialists & anarchists all have a positive view of the ‘natural society’ i.e. the human society that pre-dated the creation of the state. In liberalism Locke believed human beings had been able to live together without a state, bound together by mutual understanding of ‘common rights’ and ‘common laws’ all people owned simply by virtue of being human.  However Locke believed this situation could be.

2. The state doesn’t emerge from ‘natural society’ (ii): Society did not grow and evolve, and then decided to create the state to better the human experience.  Instead the state emerged before ‘modern society’ - and it was only because the state created order & authority, then human society could evolve into its modern form. Hobbes’ most famous quote sums this up.  He described human existence in the pre-state ‘state of nature’ as a permanent “state of war” where life was …

   
   

“solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."  When more ‘romantic’ philosophers talk of the ‘state of nature’ they paint it as a place of freedom, opportunity, beauty, positivity and pleasure.  When a conservative speaks of the ‘state of nature’ they see it as a place of danger, fear, pain and a ceaseless battle for survival…- it’s a jungle out there.  * The majority of wild animals would agree with the conservative position as they fearfully battle every moment to avoid being ripped to pieces by a predator.

3. The state as a ‘steady ship’ (i):

The purpose and thus operation of the state differs in conservatism thinking compared to liberalism and socialism.  Socialists and liberals see the state as a ‘vehicle’ with which to drive forward their ideas e.g. to create greater equality or greater liberty.  Therefore the state is a ‘means to an end’ to achieving something greater - to build the sort of society that ‘ought to exist’ but doesn’t yet. Conservatives reject this. …

They say the state itself isn’t a ‘means to an end’, it is instead ‘the end’.  The state has a very clear role - to be a steady ship steering society safely through the  ‘fatal waters’ of anarchy, the ‘stormy waters’ of change and ‘choppy waters’ of challenge.  Its job is therefore to simply keep society ‘afloat’- and not to take society in any particular direction.  

3. The state as a ‘steady ship’ (ii): In Michael Oakeshott’s words, its job is to ‘prevent the bad rather than create the good’. When reaching decisions, any ‘steady ship’ should be ‘steered’ by empiricism and experience - as this is the best way to preserve stability and order.  Equally it should be steered by pragmatism too - doing what needs to be done to achieve the goal of stability, regardless of ideological principles. Conservative views on the state link to their views on organicism.  It would be …

quite wrong for the state to set out to ‘progress’ or reconstruct society.  The ‘organic society’ proves that society is both fragile and evolves naturally and slowly when there is need.  Therefore if change is needed, it will come about naturally.  It is certainly not the job of the state to arrogantly abandon the ‘wisdom of the past’ and instead start to try to carve out a new untried and untested vision  for the nation… as foolish liberals and socialists seek to.

4. Authority and Order

For conservatives, the principle purpose of the state is to ensure order, security and certainty. To do this, the state must therefore have authority - the power or right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience.Without a state with authority imposing order, conservatives would see the world looking dystopian- with chaos, disorder, fear, alarm & the strong destroying the weak.  Within such an environment it would be impossible for humans to feel safe or secure and therefore to experience contentment. Hobbes argued without order & authority there is no …

liberty.  Individual rights are entirely dependent on law and order which only the state can provide.  He saw the English Civil War as a world of chaos and unhappiness, because the established order had broken down.  Hobbes wanted to restore the world back to its old orderly form - but saw that was impossible until there was clearly a central point of authority. It was Hobbes’ experiences in a world ‘tuned upside down’ in the English Civil War, that led him to conclude that liberty is less important than order - a view that maybe those today in failed states like Somalia, the C.A.R., DR Congo or Libya may agree with. In the UK the state provides clear authority via its various branches e.g. parliament, the courts, the police, the armed forces and the security services.

5. Hierarchy (i)

Many conservatives have openly supported the idea that the state should be run by a hierarchical ‘natural elite’.  Thinkers like Hobbes, Burke and Oakeshott were happy to defend this idea as benefiting the whole of society. Hobbes argued for one single central authority in charge of the state e.g. a monarch.  All power should be …

concentrated in the state - and therefore within that one figure in charge of it.  This would make the state and its leader an all-powerful ‘leviathan’- ensuring clear authority and order throughout the land.

5. Hierarchy (ii): Most conservatives wouldn’t support such an extreme position.  Burke instead supported an aristocratic elitist form of government- where the ‘ruling class’ exercised a benevolent paternalism over the rest of society.  Here therefore power would be distributed more widely than Hobbes foresaw - but certainly not down to the ‘ordinary man’.  In addition Burke also saw the need for both a constitution to prevent the state becoming all-powerful at the expense of liberty, and for a strong civil society of the ‘little platoons’ to act as a block to central power. Oakeshott took these views forward into the twentieth century.  He argued that …

   
   

the state is initially vital in order to impose order and end anarchy, but afterwards, once a confident civil society filled with small local communities emerges, then the state can take a more backseat approach.  Society once built will naturally preserve law and order, without the need for a heavy-handed state role (although of course the state would never disappear).  Indeed Oakeshott pointed out the state’s capacity to become ‘nasty and brutish’ itself - which tallied with the experiences of the rise of fascist states in the 1930s-40s, and of communist states 1940s-1980s in Europe.  Conservative views on a natural ruling hierarchy naturally link to their views on paternalism.

6. Paternalism (i):

Paternalism (politically) refers to the ‘fatherly’ obligations that the ruling class has to wider society as a whole. It is sometimes also referred to as ‘noblesse oblige’.  As a father exercises his authority, ensures protection and provides guidance to the family, so a social elite is needed to do this for wider society. This ruling class social elite should be made up of people who are best equipped to lead.    Burke saw this as being the traditional upper class since - by virtue of their intelligence and upbringing - they are naturally best placed. Additionally …

 this upper class had ‘hereditary abilities to govern’ - since as a class they had been educated in the values of social obligation and public service, whilst their families had provided political decision makers for multiple generations.  As such they have the wisdom and experience to lead and ensure they preserve social order & the smooth functioning of society.  (This attitude wasn’t really any different to that of Locke’s liberalism- and hopefully modern conservatives would no longer support such an attitude?).

6. Paternalism (ii):

Traditional conservatism favoured localised smaller scale paternalism where the local aristocracy or gentry ‘looked after’ their tenant farmers.  This expanded into business owners in the industrial revolution educating and improving the lives of their workers e.g. the work of the socialist Robert Owen. Disraeli’s one-nation conservatism arose in response to the threat of social revolution leading from the gross inequalities of the industrial revolution.  He followed a paternalistic agenda - but this time on a …

 national scale using the springboard of the power of the state. Disraeli’s ‘Artisans' and Labourers' Dwellings Improvement Act 1875’ for example  took measures to clear slum dwellings and improve living conditions.  Conservative post-WWII prime ministers such as Macmillan who embraced the NHS and welfare state, moved much further than Burke or Disraeli could have investigated. 

6. Paternalism (iii):There are two types of paternalism - ‘soft paternalism’ and ‘hard paternalism’.  Soft paternalism means that power rests with, and decisions are made by, the elites, but there is usually consultation before decisions are made, with the elites listening to the ‘wants and needs’ of the non-elite.  Hard paternalism means that power is concentrated into the hands of the elite and they decide what is best for the rest of society, irrespective of the rest of society’s opinions.  Traditional and early one nation conservatism was largely …

 organised in a  ‘top down’ hard paternalist fashion, whereas soft paternalism fitted later one nation conservatism best in the C20th, an era of mass franchise. (Modern autocratic states such as Saudi Arabia & Iran could be seen as operating hard paternalism, as could quasi-democratic states like Morocco or Bhutan).

7. Tradition

Conservatives would apply their key ideas on tradition, into their view of the operation of the state.The state represents a key plank in national tradition. For example in the UK the role of the monarch as head of state would be seen as an important bedrock of what the ‘British state’ is.  Similarly the House of Lords would be seen as …

another source of continuity. For some conservatives the remaining link with religion - with the Church of England being the formal state religion- would be seen as important.  (In reality the UK’s understanding of what is a ‘state religion’ is wholly different from that in many other societies with a state religion).

1. The New Right (i)

New Right conservatives such as Robert Nozick thought the traditional views of conservative thinkers like Oakenshott on the role of the state were far too passive and ‘conservative’.  Instead the New Right has a far more radical vision for the state - not based on it merely being a pragmatic ‘safe ship’ designed to keep things as they were… since to the New Right, the way things were, was a failure.  Instead …

 the New Right wanted to use the state in two ways.  Firstly, in similar ways to liberals and socialists, they wanted to use the state as an ideological vehicle to reform the economy & society, and secondly, at the same time, slim the role the state played overall, to make it smaller but stronger. 

8. The New Right (ii)

Margaret Thatcher drove forward this ideological agenda declaring herself a ‘conviction politician not a consensus politician’.  Her government rejected full employment and nationalised industries and instead charged a bold collision course to fight and defeat ‘enemies within’ such as radical trade unions.  Keynesianism style beliefs in compromise and pragmatic decision-making,- which had dominated UK political thought for 30 years - were challenged head on by the New Right. The New Right’s position on the state however can be …

misunderstood.  The New Right didn’t believe in a ‘weak state’. Instead they believed in a smaller state, but one that remained strong within the areas it operated.  That is, the state would do less, but in the areas it did function, it would maintain full authority. As thinker Ayn Rand argued ‘the small state is the strong state’. This is because when the state is ‘overloaded’ by social and economic obligations, it is less able to focus on its essential conservative functions - namely, the maintenance of order and security.

8. The New Right (iii): During the 1970s for example, Thatcherites asserted that the post-war social democratic consensus had ‘overloaded’ the UK state, with both loss-making nationalised industries and a burgeoning welfare state. According to this argument, the state was this gravely weakened: its police and security forces became underfunded, leaving society vulnerable to terrorism and disorder, while its armed forces became marginalised, leaving the nation exposed to …

potential enemies (such as the former Soviet Union - this was the height of the ‘Second Cold War’). For Nozick and others on the New Right, the solution was clear.  In respect of economics and welfare, the aim should be to ‘roll back the frontiers of the state’,via radical policies like privatisation and deregulation.  This, in turn, would allow the state to refocus and ‘roll forward’ in respects of areas such as law and order, security and defence.  For those on the New Right, the outcome would be a state that was ‘leaner but fitter’.