Those who answer affirmatively to the question would reason that those who have become privileged and prosperous under a system have a greater incentive to conserve the rules that protect their position. This position stems from the wider idea that ideologies are born for specific groups; it would similarly say that socialism is for the working class, that corporatism is for businessmen, that feminism is for women and so forth. This diminishes the intellectual case for conservatism; if conservatism is merely a defence for the privileged and prosperous, there is no rational defence for it. In order to answer the question, I will first define conservatism, and then see whether this definition would have it to be a defence of the privileged and prosperous.
Conservatism, in the words of Heywood, is “defined by the desire to conserve, reflected in a resistance to, or at least a suspicion of change.”[1] This would explain why conservatives are more likely to be religious than their left-wing counterparts[2]. However, given this definition, would those who wish to preserve traditionally progressive societies also be dubbed conservatives? In Canada, particularly in more liberal provinces, there is an anti-American sentiment that espouses the idea that America is a backwards country that aims to impose its culture upon Canada[3]. Would the defence of such an idea be classified as conservatism?
Furthermore, in the western world, conservatism seems to be a ragtag coalition of various so-called “right-wing” groups. Among such groups include supply-side economists, who look to a deregulated market; the Christian conservatives, who are looking for a renaissance of both the nuclear family and church attendance; nationalist populists, who believe that in order to preserve a society, it is necessary to place restrictions on immigration; and neo-conservatives who believe in a strong armed force and an interventionist foreign policy. These groups might be in conflict with one another: a strong example of this is the case of The Shops Bill 1986[4].
Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher introduced the bill to end government regulation of Sunday shopping in England and Wales. This is evidently a bill in line with supply-side, free market thought; she anticipated that the conservative ideological coalition would win the vote. However, she faced opposition from the religious wing of the party, who feared the bill would hurt church attendance. This example illustrates that conservatism is not an ideology, but rather a longstanding coalition of political interest groups.
If, for the sake of argument, we suggest that this coalition is in fact a coherent ideology, we must find the values that tie together neoliberals and the religious right. Is it capitalism? Ethnonationalists like Richard Spencer seem willing to denounce capitalism[5], yet they are often considered to be “conservatives”. Is it individualism? Individualism could be antithetical to reviving the traditional family: what if someone wishes to remain childless? I believe that the right-wing coalition is being held together by a desire for their nation to rule the world in some aspect. This is shown by the tendency by conservative parties to look to “stronger” economies[6], whereas liberal parties look to “fairer” ones[7]. The libertarian wing of the coalition believes that by deregulating the market, domestic businesses will begin a colonisation of global markets; the more extreme of the nationalists believe that their nation should take control of the world by recovering their old empires. For social conservatives, world domination is a matter of being the most virtuous society, whereas neo-conservatives would like to demonstrate the virtue by spreading their message, sometimes forcibly, throughout the world (for example, US intervention into Vietnam, in the early 1970s and US intervention into Iraq, in the early 2000s). In the even more distant past, the Catholic Church, in a not dissimilar manner to neo-conservatives, waged moral wars, the Crusades.
Thus, conservatism is the desire for one’s own society to be internationally recognised as the greatest in some aspect. Does this characterisation of conservatism make it a defence of the privileged and prosperous? I think not. This is especially true when looking at conservatism from the economic perspective. American capitalism, for example, has introduced affordable consumer goods to the market, radically improving the standard of living for hundreds of millions across the globe.
While taking control of the world, 19th century European explorers often harmed native populations through immoral activity. For instance, King Leopold II abused the native peoples of the Congo through forced labour[8]. The British often displaced native chieftaincies, upsetting the local status quo in many communities. However, an aspect of colonialism that is often ignored is that colonialism brought legal courts, modern hospitals and Western schools to the colonised peoples. Whether this was a systematic, benevolent effort or an inadvertent by-product, European colonialism benefited the colonised in some regard.
If we accept the above argument, and we accept that the conservative desire to take over the world is beneficial to people of lower social statuses worldwide, how do we answer the question of how world domination benefits people at home? Critics of my argument will rightly identify that, while Britain’s colonist class were establishing history’s largest empire, millions were starving in urban slums at home. I argue that a core tenet of conservatism is not necessarily the opposition to societal change, but that all societal change must be slow. This caution is sometimes unwarranted; the disadvantages of a rising consumer class are far less than its advantages. However, sometimes, the conservative fear of rapid change is rational; was it not the momentous societal change of the French Revolution which plunged it into anarchy?
Those who do believe that conservatism is merely a defence of the elite will rightly identify that conservatism, or the concept of being “right-wing” rose up in defence of France’s social hierarchy, during the French Revolution. The first conservatives, critics will note, were explicit defenders of aristocracy. They supported the undemocratic nature of the Estates-General; they feared that the masses were too fickle and too easily swayed by demagogues. Detractors from my argument will identify Edmund Burke, known to many as the “father of conservatism”, and his belief that, as reported by historian Joseph Hamburger[9], “democracy would tyrannize unpopular minorities who needed the protection of the upper classes."
However, the argument concerning Burke ignores the evolution of conservatism over the past few centuries. As political franchise was expanded to more of the citizenry over the past few centuries, conservatism has changed accordingly; it has changed from a defence of the status quo (and thus the privileged and prosperous) to the desire for one’s society to rule the world. Since conservatism was forced to compete in democratic debate, supporting the aristocracy no longer made sense to conservative politicians looking to win elections. As property restrictions for voting were relaxed and eventually abolished, the common man became more and more of a political force, forcing conservatism to adapt as such.
At first, conservatives held on to their ideological positions, while refusing to campaign on them. Eventually, they abandoned their ideological positions as well. Conservatives initially supported the preservation of the aristocracy because they believe it contributed to social unity; as democracy expanded, they changed their desire so that they could incorporate the unprivileged into their political coalition. This shift was most visible under Benjamin Disraeli. Disraeli realised that industrialisation might well have resulted in two nations, one of the rich and on of the poor. Therefore, he stressed a paternalistic sort of conservatism, one that emphasised better working and living conditions for the working poor, and social unity in general.
This paternalistic sort of conservatism has been a staple of British conservatism ever since Disraeli's premierships and is shown by the decision by the incumbent Conservative government to raise the National Living Wage to £10.50 over the next five years.[10] Raising minimum wage standards is typically not viewed as conservative, however right-wing parties have accepted that this is the best way to appeal to the average voter. However, the fundamental belief in conservatism has been constant: the desire for a society is to be the greatest. Modern conservatism is actively interested in the working man; for without him, there would be very few electoral gains.
Conservatism has progressed away from its original definition, as to reflect the expansion of democracy throughout the 19th and 20th centuries. While it was initially a defence of the privileged and prosperous, it has changed as to give the entirety of a nation a sense of belonging (as part of the nation) and a sense of purpose (to make the nation the greatest in the world), giving rise to One Nation Conservatism, an ideology that aims to promote patriotism and social cohesion, while advocating for the common man.
[1] Political Ideologies: An Introduction, by Heywood, Andrew
[2]44% of Republicans attend a religious service at least once a week, compared to 29% of Democrats: https://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/party-affiliation/
[3] “the mean and underhanded anti-Americanism”
Johnson, Harry G. “Problems of Canadian Nationalism.” International Journal, vol. 16, no. 3, 1961, pp. 238–249. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/40198447.
[4] Paul Regan, THE 1986 SHOPS BILL, Parliamentary Affairs, Volume 41, Issue 2, April 1988, Pages 218–235, https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.pa.a052143
[5] The Racist Right Looks Left : https://www.thenation.com/article/the-racist-right-looks-left/
[6] UK Conservatives’ economic policy: https://vote.conservatives.com/our-priorities/economy
[7] Liberal Democrats’ economic policy: https://www.libdems.org.uk/plan
[8] “it was clear that the Congo of a century ago had indeed seen a death toll of Holocaust dimensions” p6. King Leopold’s Ghost: A Story of Greed, Terror and Heroism in Colonial Africa, by Hochschild, Adam
[9] Joseph Hamburger, "Burke, Edmund" in Seymour Martin Lipset, ed., The Encyclopedia of Democracy (Congressional Quarterly, 1995) 1:147–149
[10] Conservatives to raise national living wage: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/sep/30/conservatives-pledge-raise-national-living-wage-by-2024
Conservatism, in the words of Heywood, is “defined by the desire to conserve, reflected in a resistance to, or at least a suspicion of change.”[1] This would explain why conservatives are more likely to be religious than their left-wing counterparts[2]. However, given this definition, would those who wish to preserve traditionally progressive societies also be dubbed conservatives? In Canada, particularly in more liberal provinces, there is an anti-American sentiment that espouses the idea that America is a backwards country that aims to impose its culture upon Canada[3]. Would the defence of such an idea be classified as conservatism?
Furthermore, in the western world, conservatism seems to be a ragtag coalition of various so-called “right-wing” groups. Among such groups include supply-side economists, who look to a deregulated market; the Christian conservatives, who are looking for a renaissance of both the nuclear family and church attendance; nationalist populists, who believe that in order to preserve a society, it is necessary to place restrictions on immigration; and neo-conservatives who believe in a strong armed force and an interventionist foreign policy. These groups might be in conflict with one another: a strong example of this is the case of The Shops Bill 1986[4].
Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher introduced the bill to end government regulation of Sunday shopping in England and Wales. This is evidently a bill in line with supply-side, free market thought; she anticipated that the conservative ideological coalition would win the vote. However, she faced opposition from the religious wing of the party, who feared the bill would hurt church attendance. This example illustrates that conservatism is not an ideology, but rather a longstanding coalition of political interest groups.
If, for the sake of argument, we suggest that this coalition is in fact a coherent ideology, we must find the values that tie together neoliberals and the religious right. Is it capitalism? Ethnonationalists like Richard Spencer seem willing to denounce capitalism[5], yet they are often considered to be “conservatives”. Is it individualism? Individualism could be antithetical to reviving the traditional family: what if someone wishes to remain childless? I believe that the right-wing coalition is being held together by a desire for their nation to rule the world in some aspect. This is shown by the tendency by conservative parties to look to “stronger” economies[6], whereas liberal parties look to “fairer” ones[7]. The libertarian wing of the coalition believes that by deregulating the market, domestic businesses will begin a colonisation of global markets; the more extreme of the nationalists believe that their nation should take control of the world by recovering their old empires. For social conservatives, world domination is a matter of being the most virtuous society, whereas neo-conservatives would like to demonstrate the virtue by spreading their message, sometimes forcibly, throughout the world (for example, US intervention into Vietnam, in the early 1970s and US intervention into Iraq, in the early 2000s). In the even more distant past, the Catholic Church, in a not dissimilar manner to neo-conservatives, waged moral wars, the Crusades.
Thus, conservatism is the desire for one’s own society to be internationally recognised as the greatest in some aspect. Does this characterisation of conservatism make it a defence of the privileged and prosperous? I think not. This is especially true when looking at conservatism from the economic perspective. American capitalism, for example, has introduced affordable consumer goods to the market, radically improving the standard of living for hundreds of millions across the globe.
While taking control of the world, 19th century European explorers often harmed native populations through immoral activity. For instance, King Leopold II abused the native peoples of the Congo through forced labour[8]. The British often displaced native chieftaincies, upsetting the local status quo in many communities. However, an aspect of colonialism that is often ignored is that colonialism brought legal courts, modern hospitals and Western schools to the colonised peoples. Whether this was a systematic, benevolent effort or an inadvertent by-product, European colonialism benefited the colonised in some regard.
If we accept the above argument, and we accept that the conservative desire to take over the world is beneficial to people of lower social statuses worldwide, how do we answer the question of how world domination benefits people at home? Critics of my argument will rightly identify that, while Britain’s colonist class were establishing history’s largest empire, millions were starving in urban slums at home. I argue that a core tenet of conservatism is not necessarily the opposition to societal change, but that all societal change must be slow. This caution is sometimes unwarranted; the disadvantages of a rising consumer class are far less than its advantages. However, sometimes, the conservative fear of rapid change is rational; was it not the momentous societal change of the French Revolution which plunged it into anarchy?
Those who do believe that conservatism is merely a defence of the elite will rightly identify that conservatism, or the concept of being “right-wing” rose up in defence of France’s social hierarchy, during the French Revolution. The first conservatives, critics will note, were explicit defenders of aristocracy. They supported the undemocratic nature of the Estates-General; they feared that the masses were too fickle and too easily swayed by demagogues. Detractors from my argument will identify Edmund Burke, known to many as the “father of conservatism”, and his belief that, as reported by historian Joseph Hamburger[9], “democracy would tyrannize unpopular minorities who needed the protection of the upper classes."
However, the argument concerning Burke ignores the evolution of conservatism over the past few centuries. As political franchise was expanded to more of the citizenry over the past few centuries, conservatism has changed accordingly; it has changed from a defence of the status quo (and thus the privileged and prosperous) to the desire for one’s society to rule the world. Since conservatism was forced to compete in democratic debate, supporting the aristocracy no longer made sense to conservative politicians looking to win elections. As property restrictions for voting were relaxed and eventually abolished, the common man became more and more of a political force, forcing conservatism to adapt as such.
At first, conservatives held on to their ideological positions, while refusing to campaign on them. Eventually, they abandoned their ideological positions as well. Conservatives initially supported the preservation of the aristocracy because they believe it contributed to social unity; as democracy expanded, they changed their desire so that they could incorporate the unprivileged into their political coalition. This shift was most visible under Benjamin Disraeli. Disraeli realised that industrialisation might well have resulted in two nations, one of the rich and on of the poor. Therefore, he stressed a paternalistic sort of conservatism, one that emphasised better working and living conditions for the working poor, and social unity in general.
This paternalistic sort of conservatism has been a staple of British conservatism ever since Disraeli's premierships and is shown by the decision by the incumbent Conservative government to raise the National Living Wage to £10.50 over the next five years.[10] Raising minimum wage standards is typically not viewed as conservative, however right-wing parties have accepted that this is the best way to appeal to the average voter. However, the fundamental belief in conservatism has been constant: the desire for a society is to be the greatest. Modern conservatism is actively interested in the working man; for without him, there would be very few electoral gains.
Conservatism has progressed away from its original definition, as to reflect the expansion of democracy throughout the 19th and 20th centuries. While it was initially a defence of the privileged and prosperous, it has changed as to give the entirety of a nation a sense of belonging (as part of the nation) and a sense of purpose (to make the nation the greatest in the world), giving rise to One Nation Conservatism, an ideology that aims to promote patriotism and social cohesion, while advocating for the common man.
[1] Political Ideologies: An Introduction, by Heywood, Andrew
[2]44% of Republicans attend a religious service at least once a week, compared to 29% of Democrats: https://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/party-affiliation/
[3] “the mean and underhanded anti-Americanism”
Johnson, Harry G. “Problems of Canadian Nationalism.” International Journal, vol. 16, no. 3, 1961, pp. 238–249. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/40198447.
[4] Paul Regan, THE 1986 SHOPS BILL, Parliamentary Affairs, Volume 41, Issue 2, April 1988, Pages 218–235, https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.pa.a052143
[5] The Racist Right Looks Left : https://www.thenation.com/article/the-racist-right-looks-left/
[6] UK Conservatives’ economic policy: https://vote.conservatives.com/our-priorities/economy
[7] Liberal Democrats’ economic policy: https://www.libdems.org.uk/plan
[8] “it was clear that the Congo of a century ago had indeed seen a death toll of Holocaust dimensions” p6. King Leopold’s Ghost: A Story of Greed, Terror and Heroism in Colonial Africa, by Hochschild, Adam
[9] Joseph Hamburger, "Burke, Edmund" in Seymour Martin Lipset, ed., The Encyclopedia of Democracy (Congressional Quarterly, 1995) 1:147–149
[10] Conservatives to raise national living wage: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/sep/30/conservatives-pledge-raise-national-living-wage-by-2024
Comments
Post a Comment