Conservatism Flashcards
Define conservatism
Conservatism is defined by the desire to conserve, reflected in a resistance to, or at least a suspicion of, change. However, while the desire to resist change may be the recurrent theme within conservatism, what distinguishes conservatism from rival political creeds is the distinctive way in which this position is upheld, in particular through support for tradition, a belief in human imperfection, and the attempt to uphold the organic structure of society. Conservatism nevertheless encompasses a range of tendencies and inclinations.
Define pragmatism
Pragmatism is a philosophical tradition that views language and thought as tools for prediction, problem solving, and action, rather than describing, representing, or mirroring reality.
Outline Pragmatism
Pragmatism rejects theory and ideology in favour of practical experience: the approach to society should be flexible, with decisions made on the basis of what works. Pragmatism also implies a flexible approach to politics which asks what will work best and what is acceptable to the public in order to maintain social stability and cohesion. This may seem like a belief in nothing. However, a preference for pragmatism is strongly linked to a belief in the limitations of human rationality. They believe that humans lack the intellectual ability and powers of reasoning to fully comprehend the complex realities of the world. Conservatives see human beings as both imperfect and imperfectible. So Conservatives reject abstract ideas, theories and ideologies that claim to ‘explain’ or ‘improve’ human life and development. Principles and ideas such as ‘human rights’, ‘a classless society’ and ‘equality’ are naïve, impractical and dangerous because they can promote violence in the attempt to remake society (often through revolution) that leads to worse rather than better conditions. Conservatives prefer to act in a pragmatic way that emphasises caution, moderation and a sense of historical continuity.
Outline tradition
Another important core value of conservatism is its attachment to tradition: the institutions, customs and practices of a society that have developed over time. Originally, the conservative justification for tradition had religious roots. Conservatives who believed that the world was created by a divine being saw society’s institutions and practices of society as ‘God-given’. Humans who attempt to alter these longstanding social arrangements are challenging the will of God and consequently are likely to undermine society, rather than improve it. According to this view, the institutions, customs and practices of the past (such as the monarchy, the constitution, the nuclear family and heterosexual marriage) have demonstrated their value to earlier societies as they have proved ‘fit for purpose’ over time and survived. For this reason, they should be preserved so that current and future generations can also benefit from them. For example, the monarchy has promoted a sense of national unity and pride over the centuries, seen in royal weddings and Christmas messages from the Queen. Each generation has a solemn duty to safeguard and pass on the accumulated wisdom of tradition to the next generation. This view of tradition clearly influences the conservative attitude to change. According to conservatives, reform or change can only be justified if it takes place organically by evolving naturally in a peaceful, gradual way in order to strengthen existing institutions, customs and practices.
Outline human imperfection
Conservatives have a pessimistic view of human nature, arguing that people are flawed and incapable of reaching a state of perfection. Conservatism also asserts that human nature is immutable (remains constant).
Human imperfection has to be kept in check due to the human capacity for evil. Human beings are morally imperfect. Conservatives hold a pessimistic, even Hobbesian, view of human nature. Crime is therefore not a product of inequality or social disadvantage, as socialists and modern liberals tend to believe; rather, it is a consequence of base human instincts and appetites. People can only be persuaded to behave in a civilised fashion if they are deterred from expressing their violent and anti-social impulses. And the only effective deterrent is law, backed up by the knowledge that it will be strictly enforced. This explains the conservative preference for strong government and for ‘tough’ criminal justice regimes, based, often, on long prison sentences and the use of corporal or even capital punishment. For conservatives, the role of law is not to uphold liberty, but to preserve order
Conservatives stress that: Conservatives have typically rejected the ‘politics of principle’ and adopted instead a traditionalist political stance. However, conservative support for both traditionalism and pragmatism has weakened as a result of the rise of the New Right. In the first place, the New Right is radical, in that it has sought to advance free-market reforms by dismantling inherited welfarist and interventionist structures. Second, the New Right’s radicalism is based on rationalism and a commitment to abstract theories and principles, notably those of economic liberalism. In this sense the new right takes a more positive view of intellectual theory.
Outline some Areas of commonality for conservatives on their view of human nature
All conservatives agree that human nature is inclined towards a desire to form a society of collective groupings for advancement. This is what Burke called the ‘little platoons’.
All conservatives agree that structures such as the family and its support mechanisms are crucial for individuals and that these are the roots of human nature.
All conservatives agree that human nature pursues private as opposed to public ends and thus it should not be regulated by the state hence their critical view on socialism’s aims for a larger state conservatives think often in terms of variety and individualism in relation to human nature, hence the link to organic principles
Conservatives share the view that the family is a natural part of all human development, hence Thatcher’s claim that ‘There is no such thing as society, only individuals and society
Outline some areas of disagreement amongst conservatives on their view of human nature concern:
Traditional conservatives (Hobbes) hold the view that if left unchecked that human nature can cause problems whereas New Right conservatives (Nozick) believe that it should be left unchecked.
Traditional conservatives place an emphasis on traditions and customs to guide human nature whereas New Right conservatives feel that human nature should shift itself and venture into new avenues if this can deliver success
New Right conservatives view human nature as progressive with the potential of self-seeking individualism whereas traditional conservatives (Hobbes) hold a more pessimistic view. Hobbes stated that human nature in the state of nature is in a state of ‘war of every man against every man’.
Traditional conservatives are more insistent on the need to impose values that restricts human nature whereas libertarians such as Nozick seek not to do so.
Define paternalism
Paternalism is an approach to running the country in which members of the elite seek to govern in the best interests of the people.
Outline Paternalism
This is one of the most important divides in Conservatism :- the neoliberal wing of the New Right completely rejects the idea of paternalism. Paternalism results in the active interference of the state in the economy and in social policy. Neoliberalism aims to reduce the size of the state so that the unregulated market can generate a more dynamic and efficient economy leading to increased growth and prosperity. From this perspective, government intervention in the economy (a key element of the one-nation conservative paternalistic approach) or state control undermines human initiative and enterprise, resulting in economic stagnation.
By stressing the importance of self-help, individual responsibility and personal initiative, neoliberals view welfare programmes and social reforms negatively. In their view, they promote a dependency culture among poorer people and undermine the free market.
Define Libertarianism
Libertarianism, as a political philosophy, indeed places a strong emphasis on individual liberty and minimal state intervention.
Outline Libertarianism
It traces its roots back to figures like Adam Smith, who advocated for economic liberalism, and later thinkers like Edmund Burke, who supported free trade and market economies while also embracing traditional conservative values.
In contemporary politics, libertarian conservatism is often associated with neoliberalism or the liberal new right. Figures like Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan implemented policies that rejected state intervention in favour of free-market principles. Neoliberals argue that the free market is the most efficient mechanism for supplying goods and services based on consumer demand and that government intervention distorts this natural process.
Key tenets of neoliberalism include opposition to Keynesian-style demand management and welfare programs, a focus on combating inflation through government spending cuts, and advocating for supply-side economics to stimulate growth and prosperity.
Neoliberals argue that removing obstacles such as government regulation, high taxation, and labour union influence over the labour market allows entrepreneurs and wealth creators to flourish, ultimately benefiting society as a whole. However, critics of neoliberalism argue that it exacerbates income inequality, undermines social welfare programs, and prioritises corporate interests over the well-being of ordinary citizens. They contend that unrestricted capitalism can lead to exploitation and environmental degradation and advocate for a more balanced approach that combines market forces with government regulation to promote both economic growth and social justice.
Outline tensions between the view on human nature
Human nature: Traditional conservative thinkers like Burke and Oakeshott are skeptical about human nature, highlighting the gap between ambition and accomplishment and cautioning against the ambitious, idealistic plans of progressive politicians. They view the tragedies of movements like the French and Russian Revolutions as stemming from a misunderstanding and overestimation of human potential. In contrast, New Right intellectuals have a more positive outlook, focusing on the potential of individuals with freedom and initiative. Notably, thinkers such as Nozick and Rand have a particularly optimistic view of individual economic achievements, advocating for a pro-capitalist environment that unleashes individual capabilities. Burke and Oakeshott have played a key role in shaping conservative views on human nature, which suggest that humans have moral, intellectual, and psychological imperfections. Hobbes, on the other hand, believed that people are primarily motivated by self-interest and are rational enough to recognize the need for a strong ruler to maintain order. Burke and Oakeshott’s perspectives on human nature’s rational and psychological weaknesses contribute to the traditional conservative belief in humans as inherently social beings and society as an organic entity. Burke’s focus on intellectual shortcomings has influenced the conservative approach to governance, prioritizing empiricism and pragmatism over abstract principles. Early one-nation conservatives shared similarities with traditional conservatives regarding their views on human nature and preference for practicality and natural societal structures. In contrast, modern one-nation conservatives are more receptive to rationalistic concepts. Conservative prime ministers from Macmillan to Johnson have implemented policies influenced by rationalistic theories, such as Keynesian economics. Neo-conservatives espouse a Hobbesian perspective on moral imperfection and advocate strict law enforcement for societal stability, believing that the state is essential for maintaining organic societal structures. Despite their inclination towards rationalism and state intervention, neo-conservative governments in the UK and the USA have initiated welfare and education reforms based on rational principles. Neo-liberals hold a more positive outlook on human nature compared to other conservative factions, viewing individuals as autonomous beings driven by rational self-interest. They believe that personal happiness within a self-reliant society is paramount, emphasizing scientific evidence and logic over the empirical and practical approaches favored by traditional conservatism.
Outline tensions between the view on Society
Society: traditional conservatives see society as a collection of small communities (what Burke termed ‘little platoons’), overseen by a hierarchical structure in which ‘paternalistic’ elites exercise their inherited power in the interests of the majority. Such communities are considered organic, in the sense that they emerge in a natural and unplanned way, and place great store upon tradition and continuity. By contrast, New Right conservatives are ambivalent about society’s very existence, drawing upon the libertarian belief that society is a mere collection of atomised individuals seeking self-determination. New Right conservatives are more sceptical about paternalistic communities, preferring a society defined by those who have achieved, rather than inherited, power, status and property — in other words, a society that is meritocratic rather than aristocratic.Traditional conservatives believe in a natural hierarchy, advocating for the state to be governed by a natural ruling class. For Hobbes, this meant a monarch, while for Burke, it meant an aristocratic government. They view the primary role of the state as preserving organic society. Burke influenced traditional conservatives to accept that society is not static, and that to maintain it, the ruling class must be open to enacting changes when necessary. Traditional conservatives prefer minimal state involvement in both society and the economy. They argue that society needs protection from external and internal threats, supporting hawkish foreign policy and military intervention. Additionally, they promote insular nationalism and state autonomy in foreign affairs. One-nation conservatives, influenced by Burke, believe in noblesse oblige and state intervention to preserve society, sharing the belief that the primary purpose of the state is to maintain societal order. Early one-nation conservative reforms were empirically influenced and involved limited state intervention. However, later one-nation conservatives have supported more radical, rational state intervention, significantly increasing the state’s role compared to traditional conservatism. They advocate substantial state intervention during crises to safeguard society and the economy, as seen in the Conservative government’s implementation of furloughing during the Covid-19 crisis. Neo-conservatives, influenced by Hobbes and Burke, also see the state’s primary function as preserving society. They support a less generous welfare state than one-nation conservatives but acknowledge the need for welfare provisions to uphold societal order. In contrast to one-nation conservatism and modern liberalism, they argue that anti-poverty programs have failed due to disregarding human imperfection and the natural tendencies of humans. During crises, neo-conservatives advocate significant state intervention to protect society and the economy, as evidenced by neo-conservative Republican backing of the CARES Act 2020 during the Covid-19 crisis. Neo-liberals advocate for a limited government, minimizing state interference in individual lives. They oppose state involvement in society and the economy, believing the state should focus on protecting human rights through minimal intervention, mainly in functions like force, theft prevention, and contract enforcement. Neo-liberals reject state-sponsored welfare and view state taxation for such programs as ‘legalized theft.’ Unlike other conservative branches, they do not support a natural hierarchy but instead endorse a meritocracy where the most capable individuals lead.
Outline tensions between the view on The State
The State: Traditional conservatives believe in a natural hierarchy, advocating for the state to be governed by a natural ruling class. For Hobbes, this meant a monarch, while for Burke, it meant an aristocratic government. They view the primary role of the state as preserving organic society. Burke influenced traditional conservatives to accept that society is not static, and that to maintain it, the ruling class must be open to enacting changes when necessary. Traditional conservatives prefer minimal state involvement in both society and the economy. They argue that society needs protection from external and internal threats, supporting hawkish foreign policy and military intervention. Additionally, they promote insular nationalism and state autonomy in foreign affairs. One-nation conservatives, influenced by Burke, believe in noblesse oblige and state intervention to preserve society, sharing the belief that the primary purpose of the state is to maintain societal order. The state: traditional conservatives like Burke defend a state where political power is wielded by those who are ‘born to rule’. As such, traditional conservatives believe the best states have a natural ‘ruling class’, reared according to the principles of duty and sacrifice, and instilled with a sense of responsibility towards the governed. Traditional conservatives are pragmatic about the extent of the state and are prepared to enlarge it in the name of social stability and ‘one nation’.
By contrast, New Right conservatives wish to ‘roll back the frontiers of the state’ (outside areas such as security and defence) so as to advance individual freedom and reverse the dependency culture. New Right conservatives are hostile to the principle of aristocratic rule — they fear that ruling classes have too much stake in the status quo and are therefore reluctant to admit the need for radical change by New Right governments.
Early one-nation conservative reforms were empirically influenced and involved limited state intervention. However, later one-nation conservatives have supported more radical, rational state intervention, significantly increasing the state’s role compared to traditional conservatism. They advocate substantial state intervention during crises to safeguard society and the economy, as seen in the Conservative government’s implementation of furloughing during the Covid-19 crisis. Neo-conservatives, influenced by Hobbes and Burke, also see the state’s primary function as preserving society. They support a less generous welfare state than one-nation conservatives but acknowledge the need for welfare provisions to uphold societal order. In contrast to one-nation conservatism and modern liberalism, they argue that anti-poverty programs have failed due to disregarding human imperfection and the natural tendencies of humans. During crises, neo-conservatives advocate significant state intervention to protect society and the economy, as evidenced by neo-conservative Republican backing of the CARES Act 2020 during the Covid-19 crisis. Neo-liberals advocate for a limited government, minimizing state interference in individual lives. They oppose state involvement in society and the economy, believing the state should focus on protecting human rights through minimal intervention, mainly in functions like force, theft prevention, and contract enforcement. Neo-liberals reject state-sponsored welfare and view state taxation for such programs as ‘legalized theft.’ Unlike other conservative branches, they do not support a natural hierarchy but instead endorse a meritocracy where the most capable individuals lead.
Outline tensions between the view on Economy
The Economy:Traditional conservatives support an economy based on private ownership but are wary of free-market capitalism due to concerns about exacerbating inequality, threatening national unity, and increasing support for socialism. With the globalization of capitalism, they also worry that market forces lead to a more cosmopolitan society that undermines national identity and culture. Consequently, traditional conservatives are open to state intervention through Keynesian economics, higher taxation, and increased public spending on social welfare. In contrast, New Right conservatives, such as Nozick, strongly advocate for free-market economies with privatized and deregulated state functions, lower taxation, and reduced state spending.
Traditional conservatives have mixed feelings about capitalism and the government’s role in the economy. Some prefer protectionism to safeguard the interests of the elite and the nation. Edmund Burke influenced this branch of conservatism by supporting the free market and Adam Smith’s ideas. Early one-nation conservatives, led by Disraeli, backed the free market but recognized the risks of unregulated capitalism causing societal tensions. They advocated for moderate state involvement in the economy. Since the 1960s, one-nation conservatism has had varying views on state intervention. While some Conservative governments embraced a mixed economy and Keynesian economics, recent governments have leaned towards privatization and free-market principles, with Keynesian influences since 2010. During emergencies like the Covid-19 crisis, one-nation governments are willing to intervene massively in the economy, as seen with the UK’s furloughing response. Neo-conservatives support the free market as the best means for wealth creation, employment, and cost reduction. They blend traditional conservative values with pragmatism, as shown by George W. Bush’s Keynesian-style intervention during the 2008 economic crisis. Another instance of neo-conservative pragmatism is the CARES Act 2020 by President Trump, a substantial economic stimulus package in response to the Covid-19 pandemic. Neo-liberals view the state as a referee ensuring economic rules are followed. They advocate for a hands-off approach, opposing interventionist state management like Keynesian economics.
Is conservatism compatible with capitalism?
Yes
Capitalism is based on private property, which historically conservatives support.
Capitalism generates inequality, which conservatives defend as ‘natural’ and ‘organic’.
Capitalism has been at the heart of economic activity for several centuries and therefore squares with conservatism’s support for tradition.
Capitalism provides the ruling class with wealth that can then be used for paternalistic support for the less fortunate.
New Right conservatism is keen to extend private property and market forces in the name of greater individual freedom.
No
Capitalism is often described as economic liberalism — it is focused on individuals rather than the communities that conservatism champions.
Capitalism creates economic and social divisions that threaten ‘one nation’
Capitalism is dynamic and volatile, threatening the stability and continuity conservatives crave.
Capitalism tends towards globalisation, undermining the national identity conservatives value.
Capitalism promotes a meritocracy that challenges hereditary ruling classes.
Outline Traditional conservatism
Conservatism arose as a reaction to political, social, economic change in the late 18th century. Edmund Burke and others regretted the events of the French Revolution, and the (as he saw it) disorder and chaos that had followed it. Traditional conservatism is therefore a defence of the ideas of hierarchy and paternalism, and of the established order. Traditional conservatives support the concept of the organic society, and that humans should not therefore attempt to reform society as those involved in the French Revolution had attempted to do. Reform instead should be pragmatic, not principled or ideological. If it is not, the breakdown of society may follow. Traditional conservatives also support the idea that society is naturally hierarchical, and that people should therefore be rewarded differently (in pay and status) depending on what position they are in in the hierarchy.
Early traditional conservatives saw the aristocracy as the ‘natural’ leaders of society, due to the fact that they had been raised to be leaders and assume positions of authority. This led to the belief in noblesse oblige, that the aristocracy had a duty to care for the less fortunate in society, as they were the only ones who could. This is a form of ‘soft’ paternalism, where those below accept that the natural leaders of society are those best equipped to act in everyone’s best interests.
Outline One-Nation Conservatives
This aspect of conservatism is most closely associated with Benjamin Disraeli, a novelist and UK Prime Minster (1804-81). Disraeli was concerned about the effects of early industrialisation and laissez-faire capitalism, chiefly that Britain was at risk of becoming divided into ‘two nations’- the rich and the poor. Unrestrained capitalism could lead to selfish individualism, weakening the sense of responsibility people have to each other. He suggested that conservatism should renew its commitment to those in authority helping those better off. This was partly based on the moral idea of noblesse oblige, that the ‘price of privilege’ was shouldering responsibility for the least well-off in society. However, there were also practical reasons for this view, which were that, by caring for the least well-off and making sure they were provided for, the chance of the ruling elite being overthrown by the discontented masses in revolution was reduced. This therefore could be seen as another example of prudent ‘change in order to conserve’. Ultimately, preventing revolution is in the interests of the most well-off.
This form of conservatism was most influential in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and was also dominant in the years following the Second World War. This was seen by Conservative Party government’s acceptance of welfarism and support for Keynesian economic intervention. Harold Macmillan further developed these ideas through the ‘middle way’, which tried to balance free-market individualist liberalism against socialist-style collectivism and state planning. One Nation views were largely side-lined during Margaret Thatcher’s premiership- she referred to those who opposed her New Right policies as ‘wets’ (whereas she and her supporters were ‘dries’). David Cameron’s call for ‘compassionate conservatism’ in his early days as Conservative Party leader was also seen as a potential return to One Nation value
Outline New Right Conservatism
This emerged in the 1970s as a rival tradition to One Nation conservatism. It was a response to the end of the long ‘boom’ in economic progress experienced by the western world partly as a result of Keynesian economics. By the 1970’s western economies were struggling with what became known as ‘stag-flation’, a combination of economic stagnation (lack of economic growth) and rising inflation (caused by large amounts of public spending). At the same time, many conservatives believed that liberal individualism had gone too far in the 1960s and 1970s and had created a permissive culture of low morality and instability. This period created a movement within conservatism based around a combination of traditional conservative ideals and classical liberal economics. The New Right has been seen as two ideological theories bound together- the liberal New Right (neo-liberalism) and the conservative New Right (Neo-conservatism).
Outline Neoliberalism strand
The liberal new right can be seen as a meeting of the conservative and classical liberal ideologies. It developed as a response to what was argued as the failure of Keynesian economics in the 1970s. It is a restated case in support of the free market and therefore rejects the use of the state – it can be summed up in terms of ‘public bad, private good’. The state is regarded as a realm of coercion and of a lack of freedom. This form of libertarian economic thinking states that the free market will work for the good of all.
Liberal new right thinking, based on the ideas of Friedrich von Hayek and Milton Friedman, has built upon the free market ideas of economist Adam Smith. They argued that by the 1970s it was clear that the state could not effectively manage supply and demand efficiently and therefore provide general prosperity. As a result, the state should be minimalized and the economy dominated by free market thinking. This argues that the market acts as a central and organic nervous system that allows resources to be channelled where they are wanted and needed through the powers of supply and demand. This argument suggests that the state is the cause of economic problems due to its intervention in the market, creating inefficiency.
Outline New Rights view on Freedom and the economy
The New Right was not opposed to state managed economics on purely economic grounds but also because of their support for classical individual freedom. They claimed to be defending individual freedom against ‘creeping collectivism’ (joint or communal ownership). The state is seen as the main enemy of personal freedom and therefore the only way to increase individual freedom is to ‘roll back the state’. Apart from economic management and ownership by the state this also means a return to ‘self-help’ or ‘social Darwinism’. They make economic and moral arguments against welfare. Economically they argue that welfare causes greater taxation and public spending which leads to inflation and inefficiency. Morally they argue that welfare creates a culture of dependency, the idea that if there is a safety net there will be no desire to work to achieve and therefore it will create idleness. They claim that this robs people of their motivation and self-respect and they return to the classical liberal idea of the ‘undeserving poor’ who contribute nothing to society and therefore should not be entitled to anything in return. Thatcher took this idea further when she claimed that ‘there is no such thing as society’. Murray agreed with Thatcher and claimed that welfare relieves a woman of the need to pair with a bread-winning man and therefore results in an underclass of single mothers and fatherless children who have no motivation to work. The final moral justification of the free market is put forward by Robert Nozick. He argues that taxation and redistribution through public spending is a violation of free property rights. He claimed that as long as a person had acquired their wealth legally any attempt to tax it and redistribute it amounted to ‘legalised theft’ against the individual.
Outline Key Thinker - Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679)
Order – an ordered society should balance the human need to lead a free life.
Human nature – humans are needy, vulnerable and easily led astray in attempts to understand the world around them.
(TRADITIONAL CONSERVATIVE) Hobbes was an English political philosopher who argued for complete obedience to an absolute government in his work Leviathan (1651). He argued that in the (hypothetical) time before any government, which he termed the ‘state of nature’, there was chaos due to unrestrained human freedom. Life in the state of nature was ‘nasty, brutish and short’. Therefore, to avoid this, humans need to submit to an authority, even an authoritarian one, as the alternative of no state would always be worse. His view on human nature was very negative- he thought humans are needy and vulnerable, and their attempts to understand the world would be doomed to failure due to their tendency to self-interest. Therefore, an ordered society is necessary to prevent chaos, and this can only be ensured through submission to a strong government
Outline Key thinker - Edmund Burke (1729-1797)
Change – political change should be undertaken with great caution and organically.
Tradition and empiricism – practices passed down for generations should be respected.
(ONE-NATION CONSERVATISM) Burke was an Irish-born politician and writer. In his work Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790) he criticised the French revolutionaries for basing their actions on abstract ideas such as liberty and equality. As these ideas were not well-established, the result would be that society would be plunged into chaos. Instead, he suggested that change, where it needs to happen, must happen with great caution, respecting the fact that society is organic. He also suggested that tradition should be respected, as it represents the accumulated wisdom of the past. Traditions have been ‘tested by time’ and have value due to the fact they have persisted, so they should not be tampered with by humans.
Outline Key thinker- Michael Oakeshott (1901-1990)
Human imperfection – suggestion that society is unpredictable and humans are imperfect.
Pragmatism – belief that conservatism is about being pragmatic.
(CRITISED ONE-NATION CONSERVATIVE)
Oakeshott was a British political philosopher. He argued that actions should always be guided by pragmatism- a practical consideration of what best works in any given situation. He rejected ideology (systems of thought such as liberalism and socialism), arguing that ideologies try to make sense of the world and guide political action, but these are doomed to failure due to the limited intellectual capacity of humans. Such theories therefore oversimplify the complex nature of the world, which humans can never fully understand. He pointed to the problems associated with Soviet-style communism as an example of how attempting to put an ideology into practice does not work. British-style parliamentary democracy on the other hand, which evolved gradually over time, was seen by Oakeshott as a success.
Outline Key thinker - Ayn Rand (1905-1982)
Objectivism – this advocates the virtues of rational self-interest.
Freedom – this supports a pure, laissez-faire capitalist economy.
(NEW RIGHT NEO-LIBERAL CONSERVATIVE)
Rand was a Russian-born American philosopher. She was a supporter of libertarianism, particularly a laissez-faire market economy. This was based on her belief that humans should pursue their own happiness as the highest moral aim (objectivism), rather than consider the happiness of others, which creates an artificial sense of obligation. Humans can be guided by reason, so should be permitted to do so. Therefore, any attempt to interfere with or hinder human living should not be permitted. State intervention, for example in the form of wealth redistribution/welfarism, was strongly criticised by Rand. She instead argued for a ‘full, pure, uncontrolled, unregulated laissez-faire’ economy, suggesting that this represented and respected the individual’s pursuit of self-interest.
Outline Key thinker - Robert Nozick (1938-2002)
Libertarianism – based on Kant’s idea that individuals in society cannot be treated as a thing, or used against their will as a resource.
Self-ownership – individuals own their bodies, talents, abilities and labour.
(NEW RIGHT NEO-CONSERVATIVE)
Nozick was an American philosopher. In his work Anarchy, State and Utopia (1974) he argued for a rights-based libertarian political system, and a very minimal state. He based his view on the philosopher Kant’s ideas. As humans are individuals with free will, they should not be used as resources (for example, being compelled to work for another). What follows is a critique of taxation, as this is in effect ‘forced labour’- the state forcibly taking a proportion of the individual’s wage therefore treating the individual as a resource to achieve an aim (such as reducing inequality). Nozick therefore argued for a minimal ‘night-watchman’ state which only exists to protect people’s basic freedoms. This is also based on the idea first outlined by John Locke that individuals ‘own’ their bodies, talents, abilities and labour. Therefore, the state should completely leave them alone, without taking some of their money through taxation, or telling them what to do (for example, laws regulating eating, drinking, smoking and so on).
Outline What each key thinkers views are on the state
Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679)- The state arises ‘contractually’ from individuals who seek order and security. To serve its purpose, the state must be autocratic and awesome. Any system of political rule, however tyrannical, is preferable to no rule at all.
Edmund Burke - (1729-1797)- The state arises organically and should be aristocratic, driven by a hereditary elite, reared to rule in the interests of all. Burke also argued for a state that was based on multiple small communities, his ‘little platoons’. Only in such accessible and intimate communities could individuals begin to grow in their affection and loyalty to the national state. Huge, distant and centralised structures could never undertake the benevolent, paternalist functions Burke envisaged for the state.
Micheal Oakeshott (1901-1990)- The state should be guided by tradition and practical concerns. Pragmatism, not dogmatism, should be its watchword.
Robert Nozick (1938-2002)- Night Watchman’ state should merely outsource, renew and reallocate contracts to private companies providing public services. the growth of government was the gravest contemporary threat to individual freedom. More specifically, Nozick thought the growth of welfare states in western Europe fostered a dependency culture.
Ayn Rand (1905-1982)- The state should confine itself to law, order and national security. Any attempt to promote ‘positive liberty’, via further state intervention, should be resisted. She wrote: ‘The small state is the strong state.’
For Rand, law, order and national security should be the primary concerns of the state.
Outline What each key thinkers views are on the Society
Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679)- There can be no
‘society’ until the creation of a the state brings order and authority to human affairs. Life until then is ‘nasty, brutish and short’.
Edmund Burke (1729-1797)- Society is organic and multi-faceted, comprising a host of small communities and organisations (‘little platoons’).
Micheal Oakeshott (1901-1990)- Localised
communities are essential to humanity’s survival, especially when guided by short-term requirements rather than abstract ideas
Robert Nozick (1938-2002)- Society should be geared to individual self-fulfilment. This may lead to a plethora of small, variable communities reflecting their members’ diverse tastes and philosophies. libertarianism is tolerant of a liberal, ‘permissive society’ and takes a relaxed view of issues like abortion, divorce and homosexuality.
Ayn Rand (1905-1982)- Society does not exist in any practical form, it was ideally just a loose collection of independent individuals. society is atomistic: the mere sum total of its individuals. Any attempt to restrict individuals in the name of society should be
challenged.
Outline What each key thinkers views are on the - Human nature
Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679)- Cynical: Humans are needy and vulnerable People will compete violently to get the basic necessities of life and other material gains, will challenge others and fight out of fear to ensure their personal safety, and will seek reputation, both for its own sake and so that others will be too afraid to challenge them. Human nature had to be tamed and controlled by making a contract with a higher power, which in turn would provide stability and guarantee freedoms.
Edmund Burke (1729-1797)- Sceptical: the ‘crooked timber of humanity’ is marked by a gap between aspiration and achievement. We may conceive of perfection but we are unable to achieve it.
Burke stressed mankind’s fallibility and its tendency to fail more than succeed. He therefore denounced the idealistic society that the French Revolution represented, claiming it was based on a utopian — and thus unrealistic view of human nature.
Micheal Oakeshott (1901-1990) Most men and women are ‘fallible but not terrible’ and ‘imperfect but not immoral’. Though incapable of the ‘perfect’ societies linked to other ideologies, humanity was still able to secure ‘both pleasure and improvement through the humdrum business of everyday life’.
Conservatives, ‘prefer the familiar to the unknown, the actual to the possible, the convenient to the perfect…present laughter to utopian bliss’.
Oakeshott argued for a more qualified and slightly more optimistic take on human nature, seeing individuals more as ‘imperfect but not immoral’.
Robert Nozick (1938-2002)- Egotistical: individuals are driven by a quest for ‘self-ownership’, allowing them to realise their full potential. individuals have self-ownership — that they are the sole authors of their talents and abilities and should be left alone to realise them, without the intervention of the government. Nozick believed that human nature was underpinned by what he termed ‘self-ownership’, namely the absolute rights that all individuals have over their own rights, and that therefore no one else has the right to interfere without explicit permission. This approach could be summarised as ‘I am the rightful owner of myself’.
Ayn Rand (1905-1982)- Objectivist’: we are — and ought to be — guided by rational self-interest and the pursuit of self- fulfilment.
Outline What each key thinkers views are on the - The economy
Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679)- Constructive and enduring economic activity is impossible without a state guaranteeing order and security.
Edmund Burke (1729-1797)- Trade should involve ‘organic’ free markets and laissez-faire capitalism.
Burke stressed the need for private property rights to be respected and that it was the duty of the state to protect and defend private ownership from revolutionary ideas that would otherwise disastrously damage the fabric of the economy. His views on the economy are partly found in his memorandum Thoughts and Details on Scarcity (1795). Here he argued that it was not the government’s responsibility to provide for the necessities of life. Private charity (paternalism) rather than state aid should help alleviate suffering. Like later conservatives, he favoured the free market over state intervention. For Burke and others, such a move would represent an unwarranted interference with the laws of the free market.
Micheal Oakeshott (1901-1990)- Free markets are volatile and unpredictable, and may require pragmatic moderation by the state, but he was still a staunch defender of private property as a guarantor of wider freedoms. In his paper The Political Economy of Freedom (1949), for example, he argued that power must be diffused and that as property represented a form of power, its distribution must also therefore be widespread and not monopolised by the few, including perhaps above all by the government. As Oakeshott put it, ‘The institution of property most favourable to liberty is, unquestionably, a right to private property least qualified by arbitrary limits and exclusions.’
Robert Nozick (1938-2002)- The monarchist state should detach itself from a privatised and deregulated economy, merely arbitrating disputes between private economic organisations. Nozick was damning of any attempts by the state to disrupt free- market capitalism. As mentioned already, he saw taxation as theft and any actions by the state to reallocate wealth as an end in itself as profoundly immoral. ‘tax, for the most part, is theft’
Ayn Rand (1905-1982)- Free-market capitalism is an expression of ‘objectivist’ individualism and should not be hindered by the state. State collectivism was to be deplored and never welcomed. The seizure of her middle-class Russian father’s property during the Russian Revolution undoubtedly shaped her thinking.
To what extent is conservatism a philosophy of imperfection?/ To what extent is conservatism a coherent ideology?
Conservatives believe that humans are selfish and self-serving. They also have a generally pessimistic view of human nature, arguing that we are imperfect and psychologically flawed. Hobbes grounded this view, and neo-conservatives agree with it that human nature is innate and cannot be transformed. Conservatives have traditionally believed in a hierarchical, stable, organic society of various interlinked local communities. Society cannot be contrived or created but it emerges organically, like an organism. Traditional conservatives, like Oakeshott and Burke, who argued that our society must ‘change to conserve’ in order to avoid social disorder. One Nation supports the organic society as well, believing that society is held together by an acceptance of duty and obligations (they believe that those at the top of the social hierarchy have a duty to look after everyone else, known as noblesse oblige). Both Cameron and May maintained ‘one-nation’ conservative values by ‘changing to conserve’ the UK in accepting devolution but opposing Scottish and Welsh independence. Neo-conservatives also believe in organic society, particularly a natural, static and social hierarchy, the heart of which is a strong authoritarian state. Both traditional and one-nation conservatives, who are organic paternalistic, view that the ruling class paternally governs for the benefit of all. They seek to solve social instability and disorder with benevolent welfarism. -traditional conservatives like Hobbes argued that without a state/government humans would be forced to live in a ‘state of war’
However, the neo-liberal branch of the New Right has a more positive view of human nature. Those like Ayn Rand argue that individuals are capable of rational thought and therefore reject human imperfection as espoused by the other branches. Conservatives from the neo-liberal New Right believe in an atomistic society: society is a collection of individual parts ,as collectivism restricts individual initiative. Ayn Rand believed that an organic society eroded individual freedoms. Her belief in negative liberty argued to ‘roll back the state’. Atomistic neo-liberals objected state intervention, which they saw as creating a dependency culture and neo-liberals argue that a state’s only role should be to enforce the free-market, protecting the borders and to protect individual human rights, with its involvement ‘limited to narrow functions’ stated by Robert Nozick
To what extent is conservatism a philosophy of human imperfection?
Most conservatives believe that humans are flawed to some degree- deriving from Hobbes’ pessimistic view of human nature. Key thinker Thomas Hobbes first espoused the view that ‘humans are driven by a perpetual and restless desire for power’. Human imperfections mean that they are morally, psychologically and intellectually imperfect. Hobbes argued that human imperfection is innate and cannot be transformed, a view with which many traditional conservatives and neoconservatives agree. The traditional position of conservatism on human nature is that of human imperfection, which has heavily influenced all branches of conservatism apart from neoliberalism. Traditional, one-nation and neo conservatives agree that humans are imperfect but believe that society can help individuals to change- through education or tough prison sentences. Traditional conservatives and New Right neo-conservatives are organic authoritarians advocating strong authority from the state to deter moral imperfection associated with law breaking. Human nature is psychologically imperfect. Edmund Burke argues that humans should put their faith in tried and tested tradition and empiricism and if society must ‘change to conserve’, it does so guided by these maxims. Michael Oakeshott lacked faith in humans and was sceptical of rationality, arguing that change should be cautiously guided by pragmatism based on empiricism and traditions. All branches of conservatism, apart from neoliberalism, argue that human imperfection can lead to disaster if the state and society put faith in principle over pragmatism. Flaws in rationalism led to the disastrous consequences of the French Revolution, according to Burke, and communist and fascist regimes, according to Oakeshott.
Burke agreed with Hobbes that humans are capable of making mistakes, yet not to the same degree. He argued that the scope of human reason and understanding is poor, so people are more likely to fail than succeed. Neo-liberals reject the idea of human imperfection, believing humans are capable of rationality. Neo-liberal theories such as laissez-faire free-market ideas are an example of them preferring principle to pragmatism. Nozick has an optimistic view of human nature viewing that when humans have the ability to use their freedom in a free-market that they thrive and fulfil their potential. Ayn Rand argues for the ‘rolling back of the state’ so individuals can reach their natural potential. Oakeshott argued that although there are flaws, humankind is capable of kindness, wisdom and that we are not unequivocally flawed. One-Nation conservatives view that moral imperfection ought to be the source of understanding matters and tend to be more liberal in their attitudes to law and order and have been willing to explain crime and social disorder in social terms rather than individual terms
