In Defence of the Principle

In an age where right-wing politics has taken the centre stage, the concept of Conservatism, and the implications and connotations it carries, have become increasingly convoluted. While politicians such as Trump and Farage may presume to personify conservative principles in order to endear themselves to particular demographics, their words and their actions are so far removed from the idea as to be almost beyond comparison from what conservatism truly means. I hope this meaning, and the contrast from politics today, will be illustrated in this article.

  The first concept of conservatism that must be immediately grasped is the understanding of the state of humanity; that is our state of mind. The conclusion that conservatism deigns from the history to which it so strongly ascribes, is that human beings are essentially immoral and irrational, and that it is therefore only through the structures of an organised society and its collective expectations, that positive action can be made for the collective good. Furthermore, that it is only through these structures that 

‘sufficient restraint can be put upon their passions’

 - words from the father of modern conservatism, Edmund Burke - and that without these governing systems, those being our social structure and the relationship between government and people among others, there can be no truly ethical or morally defensible behaviour. It is essential to maintain and to continually invigorate these established institutions, maintaining their relevance to the modern world, to drive humanity forward in a moral and civilised way. 

 A further principle is the opposition to radical change and the perception of revolutionary freedom because of its effects on the stability and morality of a society. In response to the horrors of the French revolution of 1789, Burke wrote, 

‘What is Liberty without wisdom and without virtue? 

It is the greatest of all possible evils.’

Today, populists claim to be freeing us from the vice of a global intellectual elite and left wing politics, but they only substitute with conspiracy theories, a polarising media and violent, destructive action across the world. They claim to provide liberation from the rules-based governing system around which society is formed, and yet replace it with ignorance and malevolence rather than wisdom and virtue and so, by Burke’s reasoning and by the validation of events today, it has proven itself to be the greatest of evils.

These same politicians, supposed supporters of conservative values, propose or have already made significant societal, political or governmental changes in office. We might, at this point, examine such characters as Nigel Farage who proposes to ‘stop the boats’, ‘scrap net zero’ and ‘slash the civil service’ with little knowledge of the effects that these reforms will have on the British Economy (20% of British industry is reliant on immigrant workers), the environment or the government of Britain itself. These are not safe policies, these are not wise policies, and for those who would vote for Mr Farage as a substitute for the Tories, these are not conservative policies. They are wholly irrational, certainly immoral , and not in the interest of those who the Reform party suggests it would protect.

 The conservative ideal, in addition, would have the government as a servant to the people rather than as an enforcer of its policies, therefore answering to its electorate directly and representing true democracy. This again may be what populist leaders claim to be proponents of, but decisions such as Trump’s isolationism are presently in no way representative of the wishes of the people, or in their best interest and so directly result in the degradation of politician’s pretence, as such direct government intervention is in direct contradiction to any conservative principles they claim to uphold. 

This is not to say that conservatism radically opposes the use of government support or intervention as seen in schemes such as social benefits, or national health. Only that such action will be implemented when demand from the population is apparent , thus maintaining the approbation of the people and continuity in the principles of government.

A further serious misconception is that conservatism is exclusive to a certain political party, group or ideology. Unlike other factions of the political spectrum, conservatism is not a doctrine and, unlike liberalism, socialism or communism, does not attempt to formulate a society in advance of its natural evolution. Thus it demonstrates itself as the least pretentious of its kind, but also singular in its capacity - because of over-arching principles rather than specific social and political dogmas - to be applicable to many other strains of political thought than its own in being a temperament and state of mind as well as a set of principles around which a nation can be governed.

The light in which conservatism has been portrayed today is one of overwhelming negativity, with figures portrayed as ‘radical conservatives’ leading its path. But a radical conservative is in itself  a contradiction in terms; true conservatives do not subscribe to any radical ideology, even opposing the concept of radicalism and so, by definition, cannot be radical. The reason that the term conservative made so many voters feel so safe for so long, was because its principles; those of moderation, patience, wisdom and virtue, were safe. It is therefore important to maintain such principles in this time of insecurity, ignorance and misinformation, considering that such politics is not a representation of conservatism and should not be what it must be reduced to, to survive.