We often don’t understand what conservatism is. What we should understand is that it isn't pure evil.
Ahead of our episode with Sir John Redwood being released, I thought it would be worth revisiting what 'conservatism' is as an idea, and trying to give it a fair say in an increasingly uncompromising world.
Where does the idea come from; what does it actually believe in; and is it really important?
Where does the idea come from; what does it actually believe in; and is it really important?
[Just to clarify: there is conservatism with a small ‘c’, which means the idea/ideology and Conservative with a big ‘C’, which means to belong to the political party. They are slightly different, so don't get confused!]
There are two types of people...
No, seriously. When modern political thought emerged out of the late 1700s, it basically worked out that there are two naturally opposing political groups. A yin and yang, if you will.
Firstly, there are those that want more change in society. They are ‘liberal’, or ‘progressive’, and are dissatisfied with the status quo, seeing it as allowing abuses of power. They feel the government should be the agent of change, and that individuals can benefit from government support. Business is to be regulated, and taxes higher. Labour, the Democrats (USA), the SDP (Germany) are all examples.
To this, naturally, there must an opposite. Cue 'conservatism'. Conservatives prefers cautious, natural change over time, driven by local communities and institutions, generally feeling there is value in tradition and history.
They would see government-led change as dangerous, and allowing government excess, so these people prefer a smaller government and trust businesses more. They are the Conservatives (or 'Tories'), the Republicans (USA) and the CDU (Germany).
 |
| Slightly outdated graphic, but it roughly shows positions |
They would see government-led change as dangerous, and allowing government excess, so these people prefer a smaller government and trust businesses more. They are the Conservatives (or 'Tories'), the Republicans (USA) and the CDU (Germany).
Naturally, these beliefs all range along a spectrum, with most somewhere in the middle, but if you were to divide society into two political groups, you’d find that it would broadly coalesce along these lines. There are always those who want change, and those who are cautious of it. Simple as that.
Vive la sitting-at-home!
 |
| British perception of the French chaos |
In response they reestablished their commitment to trusting facts, pragmatism and the community in their politics. The flag-waving, 'egalitare'-proclaiming, abstract-thinking Revolutionaries were too distant from their own experiences. They preferred the hard truth to grand plans.
The philosopher Michael Oakeshott put it like this: ‘To be conservative...is to prefer the familiar to the unknown, to prefer the tried to untried, fact to mystery, the actual to the possible, the limited to the unbounded, near to distant’.
It is not that conservatives hate change, but more that they trust what they can see and hear over lofty principles that mean well, but often fail. Conservatives rely on local communities to keep in check the government and the excesses of the individual. Liberals believe that government is always good, and that people are generally well-meaning. Conservatives are less naive.
The Party of Government
If you follow British or American politics, you will likely have an unfavourable view of the right-wing, having seen the behavior of President Trump, or the Conservative Party around Brexit. Yet, this is a chaotic anomaly for a group that in history has been the stewards of responsible economic management and reliability.
For instance, it was the Conservative Party that pulled Britain’s economy out of a post-World War Two slump, after the Labour Party struggled;
it was Conservative Prime Minister Harold Macmillan in the 1960s who pioneered the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, accelerated decolonisation, and oversaw Britain's permanent transition into a modern economy by liberalising business;
thirty years later, John Major strengthened the European Union, began the Northern Ireland peace process and halved unemployment;
the Coalition austerity plans skillfully reduced a damaging budget deficit, while reducing the tax the poorest had to pay and making British universities world-class again.
Forty-four of the seventy-four years since 1945 have seen a Conservative PM. Time and time again they have been reelected. Surely, with the public so often backing them there must be merit in the Conservative belief of reliable, non-experimental politics?
Of course, we must except the present state of conservatism. It has failed to respond responsibly to nationalist populism and so has been corrupted by xenophobia and racism. Their policies are being pulled out of responsible thinking and into the realms of unicorn-land that more often belongs to the left-wing.
But conservatives have done a lot of good. By making progress steady, rather than excessive, and stabilising the United Kingdom when it needed it most, they have fully contributed to the effective running of this country.
More worryingly is what fills the gap if the conservative parties crumble and forget their beliefs. Progressive parties are not perfect; something will emerge to oppose them, but it looks like 'something' will be very far right.
Conservatism isn't all bad, so it would be a shame if it screwed us over now.
Theo
it was Conservative Prime Minister Harold Macmillan in the 1960s who pioneered the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, accelerated decolonisation, and oversaw Britain's permanent transition into a modern economy by liberalising business;
thirty years later, John Major strengthened the European Union, began the Northern Ireland peace process and halved unemployment;
the Coalition austerity plans skillfully reduced a damaging budget deficit, while reducing the tax the poorest had to pay and making British universities world-class again.
Forty-four of the seventy-four years since 1945 have seen a Conservative PM. Time and time again they have been reelected. Surely, with the public so often backing them there must be merit in the Conservative belief of reliable, non-experimental politics?
Of course, we must except the present state of conservatism. It has failed to respond responsibly to nationalist populism and so has been corrupted by xenophobia and racism. Their policies are being pulled out of responsible thinking and into the realms of unicorn-land that more often belongs to the left-wing.
 |
| The sharp Republican turn to the right in the USA has caused political deadlock |
But conservatives have done a lot of good. By making progress steady, rather than excessive, and stabilising the United Kingdom when it needed it most, they have fully contributed to the effective running of this country.
More worryingly is what fills the gap if the conservative parties crumble and forget their beliefs. Progressive parties are not perfect; something will emerge to oppose them, but it looks like 'something' will be very far right.
Conservatism isn't all bad, so it would be a shame if it screwed us over now.
Theo
