Essay Plans

To what extent do conservatives have a common view of human nature? 

Human Imperfection:

Agree that humans are imperfect and so are fundamentally self-interested 

Hobbes – ‘power after power’, human imperfection is the state of nature 

Law and order were at the heart of Thatcher’s govt e.g.,  

BUT 

Disagree if that’s good or bad or not 
Traditional + authoritarian – will lead to chaos and rebellion, order is needed to 

Hobbes – life would be ‘poor, solitary, nasty, brutish and short’ – this is what would happen without authority 

NR - believe that we are fundamentally rationally self-interested so laissez faire and people will be find  

Natural hierarchy:

There’s a hierarchy because of human nature – Inherent inequality amongst humans but have differ in how that should be approached 

ONC – thinks that the upper-class have an obligation to the lower class 

NR – think that there shouldn’t be any welfare 

Imperfection means state control:

To what extent are conservatives united in their view of society?

Organic Society:

Should be organic 

ONC built on idea of organic society and uniting behind one group – Disraeli 

Burke – ‘little platoons’ – how people identify themselves in groups, small societies manage themselves which results in word 

Burke ‘society b/w living and dead’ 

BUT 

Thatcher – ‘there is no such thing as society only individuals and their families’ and NL atomistic 

Ayn Rand ‘the smallest minority is the individual’

Hierarchy in society:

Should be hierarchical  

Hobbes’ Leviathan – we want hierarchy bc of the social contract 

Burke - ‘natural aristocracy’ 

BUT 

The obligations of the hierarchy are different – NR thinks that property rights are absolute while ONC think that there is an obligation from those  

Disraeli ‘noblesse oblige’ – looking after those less well off 

Tradition:

Should respect tradition 

Burke – ‘society should be a partnership between those who are living, those who are dead and those who are to be born’  

Durkheim on functionalism – institutions have a function  

BUT 

They have defended a state that has been through radical changes already e.g., overthrowing of monarchy  

Pragmatism – post war housebuilding scheme 

To what extent are the views of One Nation conservatives on the economy consistent with those of the New Right?

Free Market capitalism:

Support of the free market capitalism is shared 

ONC – Burke thought that the free market was natural as it reflects a desire for wealth that results from human imperfection 

NR – The only thing that can properly manage resources and the economy is the free-market guided by an ‘invisible hand’ 

People have unwavering rights to ‘life, liberty and property’ and Nozick says that these are the kind of rights that ‘no person or group may do to them’ 

BUT 

ONC – To a lesser extent e.g., Macmillan pursues a ‘Middle Way’ combining state ownership and regulation of economic activity with the ‘drive and initiative of private enterprise’ and Gilmour dislikes it because it fails to create a sense of community 

NR – There should be no state intervention in the economy, their sole role is enforcing law and social order 

The reason for it is different likely resulting in their different extent of support for it

The method of that capitalism is different

Private Property:

Both defend private property 

ONC – property connects the present generation to the past, the present generation is the custodian of the wealth and nation and has a duty to preserve and protect it for the benefit of future generations 

Macmillan – Thatcher’s policy of privatisation = ‘selling off the family silver’ 

Tradition, social bonds 

NR – property reflects merit and is therefore earned 

BUT 

ONC – property rights entail obligation, noblesse oblige 

NR – property rights are absolute – people have an unchecked right to use their wealth as they wish 

Founded on libertarian ideas of individualism and right to property 

Welfare State:

Differ in how important welfare is 

ONC – Disraeli thought that Conservatism should renew its commitment to  

NR – Nozick says welfare is ‘on par with forced labour’ and the minimal role of the state in economy leaves little room for a welfare state, the view that there are natural levels of unemployment 

BUT 

There are some NR who support it – Irving Kristol ‘a welfare state, properly conceived, can be an integral part of a conservative society’ 

To what extent do Conservatives agree over the role of the state

Required because of imperfect human nature

Welfare informed by hierarchy

Role in the economy

Although Conservatives generally promote the importance of some form of state government, there are large disagreements about the extent of state control over human nature, society and the economy. This is most exemplified between thinkers such as Nozick (commonly associated with neo-liberal thought) and more traditional Conservatives such as Hobbes or Disraeli, and thus Conservativism fails to have a unifying stance on the state, although there are some agreements about its role.

Many Conservatives agree on the need for the State to have a role in society due to the imperfections in human nature. Hobbes described the state of human nature (without any source of state or authority) as “poor, nasty, solitary, brutish and short”, and theorized that people willingly sacrifice personal freedoms for law and order, as provided by the state. This idea of human imperfection, and the need for the role of the state, was similarly expressed by Neo-Conservatives. With the wake of social and sexual revolution in the 1960s, neoconservatives such as George W. Bush called for greater state interference in order to prevent moral permissiveness. Like Hobbes, they saw the role of the state as a limit or remedy to human imperfection, maintaining social order and upholding law and morality. There is a general agreement amongst most Conservatives that a level of state authority is needed, as humans are ultimately imperfect and thus require a form of authority. However, this stance was completely disregarded by thinkers such as Nozick and Rand, whose more ‘neoliberal’ stand influenced their atomistic beliefs. Unlike Hobbes and Oakeshott, Rand saw human nature not as imperfect but as positive, promoting ‘egoism and selfishness’. As a result, Rand and Nozick saw little need for state intervention – Nozick argued that the state was a ‘threat to freedom’. Disagreements about human nature within Conservativism are pivotal to their beliefs about the role of the state: as they took a positive view of human nature, neoliberals disagreed with the idea that the state has a role to maintain a social contract and authority. As a result, there are clear disagreements about the role of the state in remedying human nature, with thinkers such as Rand and Nozick sharply departing from traditional beliefs. Despite this, there is a level of general agreement amongst other Conservatives. Most promote the role of the state and acknowledge that humans are imperfect and thus need moral, social and intellectual guidance. Although they disagree about the extent of state intervention, it can be argued that most (not all) Conservatives do agree that human nature means the state has a significant role in society.

However, whilst most Conservatives do agree on the need for a state, there is limited consensus on what form this state should take and the extent of its powers in areas such as society. There are some strands of agreement about the role of the state in society amongst Conservatives. For example, many Conservatives acknowledge the presence of a hierarchy within society and use this rational to justify state intervention. Edmund Burke defended the idea of a ‘natural aristocracy’, shaped by organic society, and believed that it was this hierarchy that justified the state’s intervention and role in leading society. Using this logic of paternalism and hierarchy, Disraeli went on to promote the ideas of a ‘noblesse oblige’; an idea that, due to their natural hierarchy, the upper classes had a responsibility to look out for and care for the less equal. Using this rational, based on the theories of Burke and Hobbes, Disraeli and Harold MacMillan both introduced forms of a welfare state, such as the post-war building scheme under MacMillan. There is a clear coherence between traditional conservative viwes of natural hierarchy and an authoritarian state and one-nation ideas that this hierarchy meant an obligation to create welfare. Although Disraeli and MacMillan promoted a much larger role of the state than traditional conservatives might have supported, there is some agreement amongst Conservatives about the state having a role in influencing society. However, this stance was firmly rejected by other Conservatives, such as Nozick and Thatcher. Thatcher feared that a welfare state of any kind would create a ‘dependency culture’, and instead advocated for a reduced state role in society and social welfare. Similarly, Nozick described welfare as being ‘on par with forced labour’. The prioritisation of the economy by more recent Conservatives has led to a huge divide regarding the role of the state in society. There has been a shift away from traditional ideas about ‘noblesse oblige’, and as a result Conservativism is much more divided on the extent of the state’s role in society.

Furthermore, Conservatives take extremely divided stances on the role of the state with regards to the economy. Due to his beliefs in pragmatism and tradition, Oakeshott resisted an excessive free-market and promoted a level of state intervention, being averse to the volatile and fluctuating economy. Similarly, post-war Conservatives regularly promoted employment and saw the state as having a role to play in maintaining the economy and employment. Some Conservatives agreed that there should be state intervention in the economy, as this had been the traditional position of the state and was a pragmatic approach in order to limit unemployment or social upset. However, this is far from an agreed upon stance: the New Right takes a completely different opinion about the role of the state and the economy. Rand and Nozick both believed in minimising the state as much as possible, promoting ‘self-ownership’ and limiting the state to purely controlling inflation. This idea was similarly echoed by neo-conservatives (and is arguably the strongest area of agreement within the new right). Neo-conservatives such as Thatcher promoted minimal state intervention as they supported free markets and a small-state system. Their shared ideologies of individualism and opposition to welfare mean that the new-right firmly oppose Disraeli and Macmillan’s approach to the state in the economy. Even amongst Conservatives who want a similar level of state intervention, such as Oakeshott and Macmillan, there are many divides about how to create effective economic policy. Macmillan drew upon Keynesian economic theory, whose rationalism greatly opposed the essential Conservative ideal of empiricism and tradition. As a result, there is little cohesion about the role of the state, and thus Conservatives cannot be said to agree upon the role of the state economically.

Whilst the majority of Conservatives do agree about the existence of the state, there is limited agreement about its role and thus Conservatives cannot be said to take a united stance. There are large disagreements about the role of welfare, state intervention and economic intervention, with disagreements between and within strands of thought, and so overall there is limited agreement about the role of the state within Conservativism.

To what extent do Conservatives favour pragmatism over principle

Human Nature:

Agree: TC and ON are pragmatic because humans are imperfect (especially intellectually and psychologically)

Boundless and bottomless sea [Oakeshott]

the individual is foolish but the species is wise [Burke] → collective wisdom leads to a pragmatic approach

we are also intellectually imperfect — alone, humans seek ‘power after power’ [Hobbes]

this leads to suspicion towards untried principle and ideology (especially utopian ideals) → the political world is boundless and bottomless

BUT

Disagree: New Right disagree because they argue humans are guided by reason; they don’t accept the same level of moral, psychological or intellectual imperfection

e.g. Ayn Rand’s Objectivism — we can know the world through rational engagement

Rejects the empirical method

Evaluation:

whilst the New Right does take a different stance from TC and ON, adopting principles over pragmatic approaches,

The State (paternalism):

Agree: ON conservatives responding pragmatically to growing industrialisation and unrest, adopting and unifying idea around class in order to prevent greater opposition and accepting the social reforms that had already happened under a liberal/labour government

TC also consider hierarchy with a degree of paternalism, accepting a form of ‘natural aristocracy’ [Burke] which is a result of empirical considerations, has a paternalist element where certain people are supposed to guide over others (although some interpret this in a more strict authoritarian sense versus a Burkean approach)

BUT

Disagree: NR reject this pragmatic approach to paternalism in favour for more principled approaches e.g. a ‘nightwatchmen’ state as Nozick advocated for, the abandoning of the welfare state which creates a dependency culture (principle over paternalism), anti-permissiveness and law and order rooted in principle → neo-lib and neo-con are both principled, but in different ways

Economy:

Agree: intervention in the economy

ON — Middle way, Keynesian economics, minimising unemployment, welfare done on pragmatic grounds, Christian Democracy/Rhine Alpine Capitalism

TC — free market economy as the best system, ‘love of lucre’ leads to prosperity, embraced for pragmatic reasons rather than principles

BUT

Disagree: laissez-faire capitalists, ‘using tax money as theft’ [Nozick], Von Hayek and the 'dead hand’, the economy is beyond