conservatism Flashcards
To what extent is conservatism a philosophy of imperfection?
Introduction: Conservatism emerged in response to the utopianism of the French
Revolution (reference Burke).
Useful points:
The philosophy of both Burke and Hobbes reflected a non-idealistic, non-progressive view of humanity.
Conservatism’s stress on order, authority and tradition arose from a wish to counter humanity’s dangerous flaws (reference Hobbes and Burke).
Conservatives’ rejection of radical change stemmed from the belief that it overestimated human potential.
However, Oakeshott argued that, while mankind had faults, it was also capable of kindness, generosity, wisdom and innovation: it was not unequivocally flawed.
New Right conservatives took a highly optimistic view of how individuals would use their freedom in a free-market economy (reference Nozick).
New Right conservatives believed that free-market capitalism could deliver unbridled prosperity for all (reference Rand).
Conclusion: Though much more sceptical than liberalism or socialism, traditional conservatism does not dismiss human potential – especially within society’s aristocracy, which is seen to have a capacity for paternalistic compassion. New Right conservatives, meanwhile, believe many of society’s imperfections can be eliminated via a free-market economy and much smaller state.
To what extent is conservatism a coherent ideology
Introduction: Conservatism emerged via the writings of Edmund Burke – whose own politics were somewhat incoherent (he opposed the French Revolution, having supported the American Revolution just a decade earlier).
Useful points:
At the heart of conservatism is an apparent – and fundamental – incoherence: that in order to conserve there has to be change (reference Burke).
Conservatism is sceptical of human nature, yet trusts an autocracy/aristocracy to act wisely and ‘paternalistically’ (reference Hobbes).
New Right conservatism preaches Judaeo-Christian morality and nationalism, yet also supports an economic system – capitalism – that can lead to rabid selfishness, globalisation and the dilution of national identity.
However, conservatives argue there is a natural coherence between their belief in order and security and their belief in the existence of society: the former, they say, facilitates the latter (reference Hobbes).
Conservatives argue there is a coherence between their belief in private property and their yearning for security: property owners have a vested interest in averting disorder and revolution (reference Burke and Oakeshott).
New Right conservatives like Rand argue that a traditional conservative society coheres with an efficient and stable market economy (the former conditions individuals to act responsibly within the latter).
Conclusion: There is tension between conservatism’s stress on tradition and order and its notions of individual freedom. But most conservatives think the former is a prerequisite for the latter – hence Irving Kristol’s claim that a conservative is a ‘liberal mugged by reality
To what extent do conservatives disagree about the state’s role in the economy?
Areas of disagreement:
· The New Right disagrees with the rest of conservatism about the state’s role in the economy and is itself divided over the role of the state within its neo-liberal and neo-conservative branches.
· Neo-liberals have a rational, principled faith in the free market and laissez-faire economics. Neo-liberal economists like Milton Friedman are opposed to government intervention such as Keynesian economics espoused by one-nation conservatives and Christian democrats. The rest of conservatism broadly agrees with Thomas Hobbes’ view of human imperfection and lack of faith in the infallibility of such theories. One-nation and conservatism and Christian democracy favour a balance between a free market and economic intervention based on pragmatism, not principle.
· Neo-conservatives are sympathetic to the classical liberalism espoused by neo-liberals, as this was what traditional conservativism believed. However, neo-conservatives are suspicious of the rational principle, preferring empirical pragmatism. The way in which neo-conservatives supported government intervention during the economic crisis of 2008 onwards demonstrates this.
· Neo-liberals like Ayn Rand and Robert Nozick want to ‘roll back the state’. Supporters of an atomistic state, they are against the organic state’s belief in welfare, arguing that the taxation that funds welfare infringes individual freedom and creates a dependency culture.
· One-nation conservatives and Christian democrats argue that welfare is necessary to bind an organic society, which is the priority of conservative thinkers such as Edmund Burke and Michael Oakeshott. Neo-conservatives and traditional conservatives sympathise with neo-liberal views of a dependency culture that a tax-funded welfare system is necessary (albeit a less generous one than those sanctioned by one nation-conservatives and Christian democrats).
Areas of agreement:
· All aspects of conservatism agree that it is the role of the state to defend economic contracts and private property.
· All conservatives defend the existence of capitalism and the free market and are opposed to the kind of state management espoused by revolutionary socialism.
· All conservatives regard private property as a vital component of the economy as it provides psychological security for individuals within society (be it atomistic or organic), especially during economic recessions and depression.
· Private property gives individuals a stake in society, be it an atomistic society, as favoured by neo-liberalism, or an organic society, as favoured by the rest of conservatism.
· Private property reduces individuals’ dependency upon the state. This appeals especially to neo-liberals like Rand and Nozick.
A conclusion should state that conservatives disagree more than they agree on the role of the state in the organisation of the economy. There are areas of agreement on the broad parameters of capitalism, the free market and private property. Within conservatism there exists a schism between neo-liberalism and the rest of conservatism that cannot be easily reconciled.
To what extent do conservatives agree on pragmatism
Areas of agreement:
· Neo-liberalism apart, conservatism favours pragmatism. Thomas Hobbes argued that individuals demonstrate pragmatism, ceding individual freedoms to a state which guarantees the stability of society. Traditional conservative Edmund Burke argued that the state must be pragmatic, ‘changing to conserve’ society, which influenced one-nation conservatives, Christian democracy and neo-conservatives.
· Conservatives, neo-liberals apart, have argued since Hobbes that humans are imperfect and since Burke to trust in pragmatism over principle. Michael Oakeshott argued that a faith in rationalism is misplaced due to intellectual imperfection and that theories often oversimplify complex situations. Conservatives should put their faith in tradition and empiricism and be sceptical of principle.
· Conservatives are apprehensive of the unintended consequences of principles. Burke was critical of noble liberal abstract principles discarding empiricism and tradition for utopian idealism, which disastrously descended into violence and oppression in the aftermath of the French Revolution. Oakeshott argued that fascist and communist regimes were also built on noble and flawed principles.
· One-nation conservatism and Christian democracy pragmatically adopt welfare reforms as organic paternalists, viewing social reform as the best protection from revolt or revolution. Disraeli and Macmillan both view tackling inequality as the best way of preserving society’s status quo. Change should be cautious and considered, so, as Oakeshott argues, ‘the cure is not worse than the disease’.
· Neo-conservatives demonstrate ambivalence towards pragmatism. However, in the wake of the 2008 crisis, they chose the pragmatic response of government intervention to the economic crisis rather than following neo-liberals’ laissez-faire.
Areas of disagreement:
· The neo-liberal branch of the New Right challenges the preference for pragmatism within the conservative movement by advocating principle.
· The foundation of neo-liberalism’s faith in principle is a positive view of human nature. Robert Nozick’s and Ayn Rand’s rationalism is a belief in an atomistic society preserving negative freedoms.
· Neo-liberals loathe pragmatism because they are sure of the validity of their principles.
· This leads them into intellectual conflict with other aspects of conservatism when they endorse radical reforms such as abandoning government intervention for free-market economics, ‘rolling back’ the welfare state and advocating personal freedom that infringes upon other branches of social morality, e.g. LGBTQ rights and the legalisation of recreational drugs.
· Neo-conservatives’ principled and doctrinaire attitudes on hawkish foreign policy cannot be described as pragmatic.
A conclusion will state that conservatives do not agree on pragmatism. Neo-liberals are so convinced that their principles are correct that they find compromise difficult as it involves them betraying what they believe. This is a schism within conservative thought that therefore cannot be easily breache
To what extent do conservatives differ over the role of the state?
Traditional conservatism endorses the state based upon its view of human nature. A stateless society would lead to anarchy, so the state is necessary to provide order. Thinker: Hobbes.
This view of human nature also means that the state has authority and provides for the decision making and protection of those who need guidance and support. Authority is rooted in all state institutions. Thinkers: Burke and Oakeshott.
The state can also adopt a paternalistic role, as seen in Disraeli’s response to some of the inequalities that had developed in the Victorian period; this was an evolution of the traditional conservative view of the state.
New Right conservatism critiques big government and argues for a more limited role for the state. For neo-liberals, this means there should be no state control over the market and that welfare benefits should be removed. Thinkers: Rand and Nozick.
Neo-conservatives argue for a reduction in the size of the state, but still call for an authoritarian approach to morality and law and order that is more in line with the traditional conservative view of the role of the state. Thinker: Burke.
Conclusion.
Conservatives defend the state as it upholds the social order, satisfies citizens psychologically, and advises and guides them. This last role was developed further by Disraeli’s one-nation paternalism. While the neo-liberal strand of the New Right makes clear breaks with traditional conservatism, arguing that the state should be kept to a minimum in order to ensure that no individual has their rights curtailed, the neo-conservative strand adopts a view of the state that is much more in line with that of traditional conservatism. Thus, disagreements within conservatism on the role of the state are largely centred around the extent of state intervention in the market.
to what extent do conservatives agree on role of the economy
