Conservatism
Origins
Late 18th
Response to French Revolution: replacement of monarchy and artistocracy with constitution and representative government
Focus on: custom, tradition and continuity
Pragmatic: abstract principles (e.g. liberty) could not found society and would result in suffering and failure
→ Anti-revolutionary
Change to conserve
Opposition of radical change
Change should be incremental, building upon what already works
→ Conserve already valuable instiutions
Burke: ‘A state without the means of some change is without the means of its conservation’ (Reflections on the Revolution in France, 1790)
Philosophy of imperfection
Human nature is fundamentally flawed and limited
→ e.g. Work of Thomas Hobbes
Organic society over individualism
Dependent on trust and work between ‘little platoons’ (Burke)
State must provide order, peace and stability to achieve freedom
Power rooted in hierachy and authority
Ideology
Tensions between one-nationism and NR
→ Some: politically inchoherent
Oakshott: ‘more psychology than ideology’
Critics: merely a defence of property, privilege and inequality
→ e.g. gradual change
Attacked FR for its attempts to ‘change and pervert the natural order of things’
Lacks an end goal: no concrete view of a goal society to progress towards
Traditional Conservatism (FR → L C19th)
Hierarchy
Human nature and society naturally divided by wealth, status and power
Paternalism:
Ruling elite have sense of obligation and duty to the many
Government should reflect this and govern in their best interests
Government has clearer view of these best interests
Order:
Government provides clear rules, discipline and guidance to ensure stable society
Ensures freedom benefits everyone and is not abused
Freedom:
Attitudes and limits to freedom allow everyone to enjoy responsibly
Provided by insitutitions
Good behaviour will be reciprocated by others
Social attitudes:
There are proven moral values that have provided stability
e.g. traditional marriage, gender roles
Individual freedoms should be limited to protect these
→ Ensure cohesion and stability for all
Society is a collection of ‘little platoons’:
Provides security, order and stability (desired by an individual)
A highly centralised state would be damaging
Change to conserve
Empiricism:
Ideas should be based off of what works most effectively rather than theories or abstract ideas
→ Pragmatic and flexible approach to tackling problems
One-Nation Conservatism (L C19th → L C20th)
Threat of disorder:
Emerged from socialist threats to the order of state and society
→ Updates ideas to deal with this
One nation:
Conservatism should emphasise the trust and relationships that hold society together as part of a nation
Society is organic: all classes and groups are part of one nation
→ Damage to one will damage the whole
Disraeli: ‘the palace is not safe when the cottage is not happy’
Change to conserve:
Disraeli concerned with impacts of an unchecked free market on society
Accepted rise of big cities and commercialism as inevitable
→ Did not want reactionary policies to force a move back to previous times
Wanted to tackle worst consequences to conserve, reform
Paternalism
Wealthy have a responsibility to the less fortunate
State intervene in free-market economy and society to ensure social stability
e.g. Disraeli: Public Health Act 1875
e.g. Johnson: levelling up
New Right (M20th → Now)
Origins:
Reaction to rise of authoritarian regimes in C20th (e.g. Nazi Germany, Soviet Union)
Response to growth in state in Western Democracies after WW2: welfare state and increased taxation
Small state:
Inspired by Rand idea of ‘morality of rational self-interest’
State should be rolled back to facilitate this
→ e.g. limited to providing armed forces, police force and a court system
Oppose public spending on welfare as unjust, creating a dependency culture
→ Why should individuals bother to work if the state will provide for them anyway?
Free-market capitalism:
Market forces are best method for distribution and management of resources
Deep cuts in taxation
Privatisation
Deregulation
Tight restrictions on government spending
Trickle-down economics
Society:
Neo-conservatives:
Anti-permissive
Would extend role of state to promote traditional family values
→ Restriction of liberty
Increase spending in defence and foreign affairs
e.g. fear impact of immigration on social cohesion and national identity
Neo-liberals:
Advocate society based on individual choice
State should not intervene in areas of private morality
→ Advancement of individual liberty through reduction of tax and welfare state
Roll back frontiers of the state, minimise spending
e.g. relaxed about immigration as free movement of people is inevitable in a free market
Agreement:
Strong but limited state to counteract inequality created by free-market economics
Smaller state means those in need require support from their ‘little platoons’
Reduce funding in areas like welfare to concentrate on law and order and nationalism
Government
Necessary to provide order, security and stability
Should be limited in size
Should be committed to preserving and protecting the nation-state
Disagreement as to how far this role should extend into economy and individual choices
Free-market capitalism
Right to private property
Will provide wealth for all
One-nationists: paternalistic approach
Inequality, immigrant labour threaten stability → intervention
Neo-liberals: minimise to reward individual hard work
The Individual
Freedom and choice are important
BUT state needs to provide stability and order for this to exist
→ Strong law and order measures
Traditional: interventionist state to protect organic society
Neo-liberal: society is atomistic
Human Nature
Pessimistic
Humans are falliable and weak
Perfect society is therefore unrealistic and dangerous
→ Liberal idea of society built by rational individuals is not based in true human nature
Hobbes:
Cynical: humans are selfish, fearful and diven by a desire for power
BUT human nature is rational
→ Closer to liberalism
Burke:
Scepitcal: humans are not flawless and cannot be perfected
BUT not individualistic or selfish
Flawed but capable of goodness to others if their actions are based on custom and tradition
Humans naturally seek bonds with others in little platoons
Oakeshott:
‘fragile and falliable’
Instinctive preference for known over unknown
Security, lives shaped by custom and traditional morality
→ ‘benign and benevolent’
Focus on imperfection
→ Highlights human falliability over potential
→ Opposition to utopian ideals of radical movements
Politics of scepticism
Rand and Nozick:
More positive: humans are rational individuals who are dignified in pursuit of their own goals
New Right leaves individuals to make their own choices
The State
Cental purpose is to provide national security and law and order
Hobbes:
Social contract to create a sovereign
Sovereign has absolute power to ensure order and stability
Burke:
No social contract, only a contract between the living, dead and those yet to be born
State is natural and organic
Emergece gradually in response to human needs
Hierarchy is natural and should be used in best interests of the less fortunate
Opposed to centralised and remote state structures
Traditional:
Active role in protecting and promoting interests of citizens
Paternalist
Moderate social reform and intervention can be justified to benefit the less fortunate
Oakshott:
Should be guided by pragmatism
New Right:
Should be small
Exists for national security, enforcing contracts and maintaining order
Nozick:
Distributive justice (taxation and welfare state) was unjust, legalised theft of wealth
Compared taxation to ‘forced labour’
Society
Traditional:
Paternalistic
Natural, organic
Individual bound together by common ties, obligations and responsibilities
Prioritise traditional, custom and continuity
→ Attempt to overhaul risk damage
Shared views, Judeo-Christian moral values
Hobbes:
Society could only exist when stability, authority and order were present
Requires obedience and loyalty to the sovereign
Burke:
‘little platoons’
Organic, natural hierarchy
Oakeshott:
Importance of the known, tried and tested
Change should be rooted in the past and realistic
New Right:
Rand and Nozick challenged organic view
Atomistic
Individuals rationally pursue their own ends
Society has no right to restrict the individual, should be free to make own choices
→ e.g. Rand admitted finding homosexuality ‘disgusting’ but did not believe it should be banned or restricted