2.1- Conservatism Flashcards
What is pragmatism? what is the argument against it?
One of the most important aspects of conservatism is usually associated with Edmund Burke and Michael Oakeshott. It rejects ideology and favours practical experience- approaches should be flexible and what works should be the basis of decision making.
Oakeshott summarised this when he said that “to be conservative is to prefer the trued to the untried”. The best interests of people, public acceptability and maintenance of social stability is at the core of decision making.
Many argue that it lacks political opinions and encourages politicians to simply follow ever changing public opinion. In practice ideology has to have some role
How is pragmatism linked to the conservative view of human rationality
Conservatives contend that humans lack the intellectual ability and powers of reason to fully understand the complexities of the world.
Due to this, conservatives tend to dismiss ideas that try to explain or improve human life. Such ideas as classless societies or human rights are dangerous as they can promote radical change in society, that they argue could lead to worsening conditions.
Pragmatism emphasis caution and continuity.
What are conservatives view on change? What difference do each type have and why?
Traditional and one national conservatives and most often linked to the idea.
Traditional conservatives including Burke, it is essential to facilitate natural champ in society. Natural change should not be opposed as without as a state without the means of change is without the means of its conservation- it has to adapt to exist.
IT allows for change through an evolutionary process. The key features of traditional society- church, monarchy act- only can exist through pragmatism, that takes into account changes in the world and allows itself to change.
One nation conservatives often agree, however, more recently may adopt a middle way, a change that was deeply rooted in a belief for pragmatism. It combines market competition with government competition. they argue that moderate economic ideas promote growth and social inclusion, allowing a balance.
When has one national conservative pragmatism been shown in British political history? What happened?
1954-64
A series of moderate conservative administrations governed the UK. In opposition the party had opposed many of Labour’s domestic reform programmes. however, they did not change them once in power- for example leaving nationalisation and the welfare state intact. They were aware of their popularity and success and took a pragmatic approach.
What is tradition and what does it mean for conservatives? What is it history
The institutions, practices and customs of a society.
Originally the justification had religious roots. They believed that the world created by a divine being saw societies institutions as ‘God-given”.By trying to change them, you are trying to alter the will of God.
While some religious fundamentalists still try to argue this, it is no longer mainstream political opinion. Enlightenment and its rationality and anti-clericism and the introduction of man made innovations challenged this.
What are the conservative arguments for tradition
Firstly, raring on the ideas of Burke and G.K> Chesterton conservatives claim that tradition conditions the sacculated wisdom of the past. They have been able to demonstrate their value to earlier societies and have been ‘fit for purpose’. They should be maintained so that current and further societies can benefit from them. The monarchy has promoted a sense of unity and pride over centuries, for example in the 2011 royal wedding- it allows continuity an social stability
Bruke believed this and he famously stated that society was a partnership[ between those living ad those not living, those who are dead and those that are yet to be born”. Each generation has the duty to maintain and pass on this ‘wisdom’ to the future generation.
Tradition has an impact here- change can only be justified to strengthen current institutions, practices and customs. BY refusing tradition we allow for more destructive ideas. They argue we see this in how the french in the revolution and the Russians’ similarly were paving way for more tyrannical regimes (period terror of 1973 (over 16,000 sentenced to death), napoleon and stalin)
The second argument is that tradition allows for a strong sense of identity. They provide people with a historical sense of belonging. IT fosters social inclusion and cohesion as it offers a collective sense of being and identity and a strong ties in society.
Attempts to radically change this cuts people off from traditional basis of society and leads to instability, insecurity and anxiety.
This can be seen in the oppression to New labours conditional reforms, as they (in the traditional conservative view) undermined stability of UK and creates dangerous uncertainty
What is the conservative view on human imperfection
They have a pessimistic view of human nature arguing that people are flawed and incapable of reaching perfection. IT cannot be changed and has to be jet in check, due to the possibility of evil.
they split this further:
There us a psychological imperfection-
Humans are limited and dependant. People crave sagely, familiarity and the security of knowing their place in society. This means a premium must be placed on social order over liberty, as we need security and predicability. Liberty raises the unsettling idea of choice and change. This is linked to Hobbes’ argument that social order has to come before liberty
Moral-
humans are morally imperfect as we are naturally selfish and greedy. Anti social behaviour is due to nature and cannot be said to be part of economic and social disadvantage, due to this a robust law and order system is needed. It is the only effective deterrent.
Intellectual-
This is also limited. We do not have the ability or potential to make sense of a complex modern world. They reject overacting ideas that attempt to explain society. We need to draw o tradition and experience to understand and respond to the world.
Due to this:
A tough stance on law and order is needed
As human nature cannot be changed, foreign policy has to based on national security, rather than notions of co-opperation and harmony
Human nature is competitive, so any successful poetical system will recognise that self-interest is a more powerful motivator than altruism
what is the organic state? What has led to its belief?
Due to the belief of humans being dependant, it follows that people can’t exist outside of society as a whole or form social groups such as the family or local community. They are an extension of society They provide individuals with security and oppose and prevent anomie- an issue of instability affecting societies, produced by a lack of standard in society and values.
Humans accept duties and responsibilities and bonds that go with beginning to society, i.e. being a parent, respectful son. This, to conservatives, represents true freedom - acceptance of value of social obligations and tie . IF people do not acknowledge these responsabitliies human society would have no social cohesion and end in atomism- the idea that society is made up of self interested and self sufficient individuals (also known as egoistic individualism).
These assumptions lead conservatives to endorse organism. This views society as a living organism, all its parts working together to ensure that the body remains healthy.
Two considerations are important:
The internal elements cannot be random. It is delicate and so are the relationships. If said balance is disturbed the society will be undermined and maybe even destroyed- it is more than just a collection of elements
It is also based unnatural needs such as affection, security and concern rather than an ideological blueprint. Such a view- where its parts are natural beyond human control- suggest that its members should sustain the careful balance of interaction elements0 especial y the long standing institutions that have allowed for a ‘health’ over time.
How does the belief in hierarchy link to the ida of an organic state
Traditional conservatism has argued that society is naturally hierarchical- based on fixed social ranks and inequality. This is partly due to the fact individuals vary in their talents and skills. An organic view, they claim, must rely on inequality, not only due to ability, but also class. They argue different classes have different roles. Some have to provide political leadership or perform labour. An organic society, as a result, produces natural inequality. They claim it can be justified as the most advantaged have the most responsibility. Managers have to carry the ‘burden’ of providing economic well being to work forces. In this sense it also agues for paternalism.
How does the belief in authority link to the ida of an organic state
The idea of authority underpins the idea of hierarchy. Authority develops naturally in the same way as society IT operates in a top down manner, shaping relations between social groups and permeates all institutions. Authority resides in political leaders, employers, managers, parents act
They argue that it performs a vital role in providing security, discretion and support. it allows social cohesion and shows people ewer they fit in and what their expectations are. It not only allows for discipline, but also, example to be admired, respected and accepted.
The action son people in such authority i limited by natural responsibility that accompany their position. Employers do not have the right to abuse workers.
What is paternalism? How does it express itself (examples)?
It is the idea that the government is who is best equipped to eat by virtue of their birth and upbringing.
It is clearly linked to the idea of hierarchy and organic society.
Traditional conservatives, such as Burke, argue that natural aristocracy presided over society like a father over his family; the social elite give us leadership due to inane and hierarchal abilities . Just as a father ensures protection as well as authority. Skills and talents cannot be obtained by hard work or see improvement.
Those at the top of society have a duty of care for the lower social ranks. some conservative aristocrats acts din a fashion of paternalism by improving material conditions for tenants and employees and through philanthropy.
They ‘know what is best’ for the rest of society. Traditionally they were from the aristocratic class that had been educated involves of social obligation and public service. The Cecil family and Stanley family are good examples of this ( the Marquesses of salisbury and Earls of Derby). More recently One nation conservatism has relied on government regulation of the economy and social welfare measures- Cameron called upon it in what he called ‘compassionate conservatism’
What are the forms of paternalism ? How does it express itself differently? Who do different types if conservatives respond to it? How has it adapted
Soft and hard.
One nation paternalistic conservatism’s roots are usually tracked back to the works of Disraeli 1974-1880. In his novels Coningsby and Sybil he warned that Britain was dividing into two nations- the rich and poor. This increased the liklehood of social revolution. This could lad to revolution if the privileged recognised their responsibility and duty to the vulnerable. This would preserve their place in society, but also allow of greater social cohesion an stability. It blended see interest with principal. He put this into practice with moderate social reform. He codified the law on public health and passed laws to prevent labour exploitation and recognise trades unions.
By the mid 20th century there was a middle way. An economic approach to social reform, in pursuit of paternalistic policy. The governments of the 50s and 60s steered a central course between free marked economics and state planning- the former did not protect the poorest and led to social fragmentation and the latter stifled intuitive and entrepreneurial flair. Economic policy combined government regulation and market competition to create, in the words of Howard McMillan “private enterprise without selfishness”. They accepted a level of obligation to intertwine. There were limits, improving conditions for poorer groups was principally attached by a desire to strengthen hierarchy by removing threats to social order.
In contrast, Neo-liberalism rejects this. It wanted to remove the state si tart the market can generate a more efficient economy. Government intervention undermines human enterprise and initiative, leading to economic stagnation. It also has a faith in individualism, which also undermines this. It stresses the importance of self help and respoability, they view welfare programmes and social reforms negotiably. They argue they create a dependency culture and undermine the are market
What is libertarianism
It is a political philosophy that emphases the right to liberty, arguing for limited state intervention.
The primary role of the state should be to protect individuals rights and freedoms. It rivals the idea of paternalism
Where does libertarianism come from
It has been alive since the 18th century and was influenced by Adam Smith’s arguments for liberalism. Burke advocated free trade and a market economy on the grounds that it was efficient and natural- due to human desire to wealth. The operation of the capitalistic free market represents a natural law that cannot be changed without damaging prosperity.
How is libertarianism expressed in the modern day and what do they believe
In its modern form, it is often known as the new right of neoliberalism. It is often associated with Thatcher and Reagan. They champion free market and opposes Keynesian demand management and welfare.
They argue that the free market is the only machismo that can efficiently supply goods on the bassi of consumer demand. Only the government can determine the natural level of unemployment, they argue.
Inflation, in their view, acts as the largest threat to the market economy. It undermines finical confidence and inhibits economic and business activity. TO combat this they call for government spending cuts, this was seen in both Thatcher and Reagan’s administrations.
They also dismiss economy and public ownership in a mixed economy. They argue that expense and inefficiency act as the greatest deterrent. They endorse supply style economics, governments should create the optimum conditions to facilitate economic growth and production. In practice this means producers access to resources- such as labour and land- has been unrestricted. Obstacles such as regulation, tax and trade union influence over the labour market have to be removed. There is an assumption that the innovative and dynamic aspects of wealth creates can only flourish free from these restraints.
IT also opposes stat intervention, arguing that the rolling back of the state is needed to ensure individual liberty. They oppose state intervention on moral and economic grounds.
Economic they create a dependency culture and deprive people of self-respect and dignity and undermines personal responsibility and initiative. Hayek argued that dependancy on the state create s new serfdom and by 1980s the neoliberals were auguring that there is a generational dependancy complex. It ended finical responsibility for children and thus undermined the idea of the family, sapping up the drive for wealth creation and creating an underclass
Moral- policies that provide welfare services undermine property rights. No legally acquired property can be transferred from one individual to another without consent. Taxation, thus, represents state robbery. This is based on an extreme sense of individualism
