Jump to content

Conservatism: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 37: Line 37:
Conservatives tend to favour what they call the natural. Nature here is meant in contrast to the artificial or created (rather than invoking the [[Natural environment| natural world]], though this is often included). They see evidence of a design or [[emergence | emergent order]] that is wiser than any human mind, especially one working outside of the rich traditional depository of values.
Conservatives tend to favour what they call the natural. Nature here is meant in contrast to the artificial or created (rather than invoking the [[Natural environment| natural world]], though this is often included). They see evidence of a design or [[emergence | emergent order]] that is wiser than any human mind, especially one working outside of the rich traditional depository of values.


Conservatives who adhere to the natural often appeal to organic [[metaphors]], such as the notion of society as a living organism. The metaphor illustrates values such as 'rootedness', in which society is seen as a tree with its roots in the past and a crown in the present. Cutting contact with the roots would kill the tree. Through this metaphor, conservatives look askance at the potential for [[progress]]. Some may even regard the "natural" order as already for the best, so any deviation by definition would worsen the situation. Conservatives who believe in nature prefer [[hierarchy]] to [[egalitarianism]], national [[sovereignity]] to created unions and acceptance of inequality to [[redistribution]]. Western conservatives derive some of their devotion to the [[free market]] from this notion.
Conservatives who adhere to the natural often appeal to organic [[metaphors]], such as the notion of society as a living organism. The metaphor illustrates values such as 'rootedness', in which society is seen as a tree with its roots in the past and a crown in the present. Cutting contact with the roots would kill the tree. Through this metaphor, conservatives look askance at the potential for [[progress]]. Some may even regard the "natural" order as already for the best, so any deviation by definition would worsen the situation. Conservatives who believe in nature prefer [[hierarchy]] to [[egalitarianism]], national [[sovereignty]] to created unions and acceptance of inequality to [[redistribution]]. Western conservatives derive some of their devotion to the [[free market]] from this notion.


* [[Virtue]] and [[religion]]
* [[Virtue]] and [[religion]]

Revision as of 19:52, 6 November 2005

For related and other uses, see Conservatism (disambiguation)

Conservatism is a major political philosophy supporting traditional values or an established social order. As the word implies, conservatives seek to conserve the existing social order or to reinstate a social order from the past.

Most conservative parties are on the political right, but there are countries where a conservative party falls on the left. Conservatism as a philosophy is much older than the left-right division, and it can include adherents from both. In the Netherlands, for example, defenders of ‘Dutch tolerance’ as a traditional national value and Islamist supporters of Sharia law both call themselves conservatives.

In English-speaking countries, conservatism often refers to a political philosophy presented by English statesman Edmund Burke. Burkean conservatives wish to conserve heritage; they advocate the current social climate. To a Burkean, any existing value or institution has undergone the correcting influence of past experience and ought to be respected. Burkeans do not reject change, as Burke wrote "a state without the means of change is without the means of its conservation," but they insist that further change be organic, rather than revolutionary.

Tradition in conservatism

All conservatives value tradition. Tradition does not mean simply custom, habit or nostalgia for the past, though custom does inform tradition and sustain it. For a conservative, tradition is composed of standards and institutions that have been shown to promote the good, and therefore they find authority in tradition and apply it in politics. This authority, be it a person, a literature or a way of life, is rooted in the past, and thus cannot easily change . To keep tradition alive, conservatives pass it down from generation to generation, embodied in the eternal verities or the sophia perennis.

Conservatives accept traditional values as authoritative, and judge the world around them by the stardards they have come to trust. Many conservatives believe in God, and believe that He is not only the creator of the universe, but also the Author of those conservative values they espouse.

Since conservatives believe tradition supercedes the political process, the laws and constitutions of liberal democracies that permit behavior that conflict with traditional values cause friction in their eyes. Conservatives in a democracy choose to participate, separate, or resist. They often participate in liberal republican politics, using government policy to impose or preserve their values. Good examples of this are the Christian Democratic parties in Europe.

Another method of conservative reform, imposing their values on the public, is common among nationalist or religious conservatives. This can take a relatively benign form, such as Conservative Christians trying to order public school students to pray, or a more violent form, such as Islamists putting to death anyone who blasphemes. Armed conservatives who consider their tradition to be absolute for all may become revolutionary conservatives. In Europe the Catholic-nationalist-conservative regimes of Salazar and Franco are examples.

Though relatively rare, a modern example of conservatives who withdraw from society and attempt to live their lives in traditional ways is the Amish.

Some traditional values

Different forms of conservatism emphasise different values, many of them overlapping. For example:

Conservatives typically limit innovation out of risk aversion. Change is by nature risky; it can potentially disrupt or even ruin the social order, which is the only existing guarantee that conservative values will survive. Maintaining the status quo at least preserves these values, so conservatives favour heritage over innovation, incremental change over utopian projects, and unity over discord. This attidude is well summed up by the Shakespearean phrase, "Discretion is the better part of valor."

Some conservatives consider loyalty to their social class to be paramount. These conservatives are almost always themselves of the privileged class, and consider the lower classes to be so intrinsically inferior that the subject does not merit discussion. In ancient Rome, the patrician class had this attitude toward the plebeian class, and much of the history of the Roman republic is a history of the class struggle.

Class is not the same as wealth. It is strictly hereditary, and class conservatives look down on the "nouveau riche" as much as on the working poor. This attitude arises from the conservative distrust of socially disruptive behavior; those who have suddenly acquired wealth, like those who never managed to attain it in the first place, have not shown an ability to sustainably manage assets, and so they represent a threat to the traditional system of financial stewardship that drives conservative culture.

Conservatives tend to favour what they call the natural. Nature here is meant in contrast to the artificial or created (rather than invoking the natural world, though this is often included). They see evidence of a design or emergent order that is wiser than any human mind, especially one working outside of the rich traditional depository of values.

Conservatives who adhere to the natural often appeal to organic metaphors, such as the notion of society as a living organism. The metaphor illustrates values such as 'rootedness', in which society is seen as a tree with its roots in the past and a crown in the present. Cutting contact with the roots would kill the tree. Through this metaphor, conservatives look askance at the potential for progress. Some may even regard the "natural" order as already for the best, so any deviation by definition would worsen the situation. Conservatives who believe in nature prefer hierarchy to egalitarianism, national sovereignty to created unions and acceptance of inequality to redistribution. Western conservatives derive some of their devotion to the free market from this notion.

Many conservatives wish to enforce what they see as right living. They do not do this out of prudishness or a desire to make other people unhappy, but for two main reasons: first, they believe right living will do their neighbor good (whether he realizes it or not); second, because social mores tend to decay if they are not practiced by the community (which conservatives often find needs a little prodding). So they emphasize morality over a tacit (if not official) relativism, community over the individual and church involvement in government over laïcité.

Classification of conservatism

Cultural conservatism

Cultural conservatism hopes to enshrine the received heritage of a successful nation or culture. The culture in question may be as large as Western culture or Chinese civilization or as small as that of Tibet. Cultural conservatism does not always support its own culture: Kemal Ataturk attempted to transplant some Western institutions into Turkey, creating a republic.

Cultural conservatives try to adapt norms handed down through a culture. The norms may be romantic: The anti-metric movement, demanding the retention of avoirdupois weights and measures in Britain, and opposing their replacement with the metric system is a classic example. They may be institutional: In the West this has included chivalry and feudal social structure, as well as capitalism, laicite and the rule of law. In the East it signifies the state examination system in China or widespread cultural tolerance in India. The norms may also be moral, according to social conservatives. For example, in some cultures such practices as homosexuality, abortion, or women who expose their faces or limbs in public are considered immoral, and conservatives in those cultures often support laws to prohibit such practices. Other conservatives take a more positive approach, supporting good samaritan laws, or laws requiring public charity, if their culture considers these acts moral.

Cultural conservatives often argue that old institutions have adapted to a particular place or culture and therefore ought to perservere. Depending on how universalizing (or skeptical) they are, cultural conservatives may or may not accept cultures that differ from their own. Many conservatives believe in a universal morality, but others will allow that moral codes may differ from nation to nation, and only try to support their moral code within their own culture. That is, a cultural conservative may doubt whether the broad ideals of French communities would be equally appropriate in Germany.

Other conservatives radicalize, instigating a conservative revolution such as the overthrow of the pro-western Pahlavi regime in Iran. Radical conservatism represents a radical and utopian goal. It asserts that conservatives should ultimately seek a radically different form of society from the one currently in place, a society designed to suppress innovation and freeze the culture as it was in some ideal age in the past. Those who go further, and attempt a radical new model of society, are not conservatives but rather utopians. The idea of a radical transformation of society, for contra-innovative purposes, is part of some theories of fascism.

Religious conservatism

Religious conservatives look to the receipt of special knowledge from a traditional source. Note that these values arrive external to their surrounding social order; religion opposes "the world," though it may be informed by the world. So religious conservatism, rather than considering local sources of tradition, prefers the holy organization of church, mosque or temple, which delivers special knowledge received so long ago.

This means religious conservatism does not use the word tradition quite like other conservatives. Tradition in the religious context does not invoke an historically informed evolution. Church tradition by definition cannot evolve because it derives tradition from an unchanging divine act. This does not mean that church tradition never adapts, but that any "changes" enacted after revelation are refinements rather than discontinuities. St. Paul illustrates this use of tradition in First Corinthians: "I have received from the Lord that which also I delivered unto you." The Latin word for delivered here is traditio.

While some conservatives may be wary of government intervention into the private lives of citizens, even when that intervention is in support of traditional values, religious conservative movements in general tend to support such causes. The almost universal support by secular, Christian, Jewish, and Muslim conservatives for anti-abortion movements is the most prominent example.

Conservative governments influenced by religious conservatives may promote broad campaigns for a return to traditional values, such as the Back to Basics campaign of British premier John Major. In the European Union, a conservative campaign sought to constitutionally specify certain conservative values in the proposed European Constitution. Most prominently, Pope John Paul II lobbied for inclusion of a reference to God, which was narrowly defeated.

Radical movements in Islam illustrate the method by which religious conservatism, rather than trying to preserve an existing social order, seeks to overthrow the existing order and enforce an adoption of its own traditions, values, worldview, and lifestyle. This differs from utopian revolutions, which seek to replace the existing order with a more progressive society. The Salafist movement is often politically radical, and violently repressed for that reason. Salafism seeks to re-create the Islamic society which existed at the time of Muhammad's death and for a short time thereafter, rejects the later development of Islamic societies, and can therefore be classified as a radical religious conservatism. The Salafi give great prominence to a disputed hadith (reported statement of the Prophet), which is classically conservative:

Every innovation is misguidance...[1]

Burkean conservatism

The classical conservative tradition in English-speaking countries, which usually regards Edmund Burke as its intellectual source, often insists that conservatism has no ideology in the sense of a utopian programme, with some form of master plan. Edmund Burke developed his ideas in reaction to the Enlightenment idea of a society guided by abstract "Reason." Although he did not use the term, he anticipated the critique of modernism, a term first used at the end of the 19th century by the Dutch religious conservative Abraham Kuyper. Burke was troubled by the Enlightenment and argued, instead, for the value of tradition.

Some men, argued Burke, have more reason than others, and thus some men will make worse governments if they rely upon reason than others. To Burke, the proper formulation of government came not from abstractions such as "Reason," but from time-honoured development of the state and of other important societal institutions such as the family and the Church.

"We are afraid to put men to live and trade each on his own private stock of reason, because we suspect that this stock in each man is small, and that the individuals would do better to avail themselves of the general bank and capital of nations and ages. Many of our men of speculation, instead of exploding general prejudices, employ their sagacity to discover the latent wisdom which prevails in them. If they find what they seek, and they seldom fail, they think it more wise to continue the prejudice, with the reason involved, than to cast away the coat of prejudice, and to leave nothing but naked reason; because prejudice, with its reason, has a motive to give action to that reason, and an affection which will give it permanence."

Burke argued that tradition is a much sounder foundation than "reason". The conservative paradigm he established emphasises the futility of attempting to ground human society based on pure abstractions (such as "reason," "equality," or, more recently, "diversity"), and the necessity of humility in the face of the unknowable. Tradition draws on the wisdom of many generations and the tests of time, while "reason" may be a mask for the preferences of one man, and at best represents only the untested wisdom of one generation.

In the Burkean view, an attempt to modify the complex web of human interactions that form human society for the sake of some doctrine or theory runs the risk of running afoul of the iron law of unintended consequences. Burke advocates vigilance against the possibility of moral hazards. For Burkean conservatives, human society is something rooted and organic; to try to prune and shape it according to the plans of an ideologue is to invite unforeseen disaster.

Conservatism's effect on history

Conservative attitudes can be found in all historical cultures which left a written record of their politics. In the western world, conservative ideas and conservative thinkers are identifiable elements of Classical Antiquity.

The best-known modern conservatisms developed in the early-modern and modern periods in Europe. Events such as the English Civil War and the French Revolution helped shape the modern ideologies. The early-modern conservatives tended to support monarchy, but Edmund Burke, who argued so forcefully against the French Revolution, favoured the American Revolution. Since justifications for the American revolution included appeals to long-standing rights of subjects of the British Crown, which had been violated by the King, it could be described as a conservative revolution, opposed to these perceived changes in political forms.

At the end of the Napoleonic period, the Congress of Vienna marked the beginning of a conservative reaction in Europe, to contain the liberal and nationalist forces unleashed by the French revolution. Joseph de Maistre was the most influential spokesperson for counter-revolutionary and authoritarian conservatism, with the emphasis on monarchy as a guarantee of order in society.

Impact on other ideologies

Many forms of conservatism incorporate elements of other ideologies and philosophies. In turn, conservatism has influence upon them. Most conservatives strongly support the nation-state (although that was not so in the 19th century), and patriotically identify with their own nation. Nationalism, which sees the nation as a long-term, centuries-old, community, has many conservative aspects. Nationalist separatist movements are by definition radical but also conservative. They appeal to tradition and often emphasise rural life and folkways.

The most controversial ideological impact is the conservative element in fascism. European fascism drew on existing anti-modernist conservatism, and on the conservative reaction to communism and 19th-century socialism. Conservative thinkers such as historian Oswald Spengler provided much of the world view (Weltanschauung) of the Nazi movement. However, traditionalist, monarchist, and Catholic conservatives often despised the fascist mass movements, and the personality cult around the leader. In Britain, the conservative Daily Mail enthusiastically backed Sir Oswald Mosley's British Union of Fascists, and part of the Conservative Party supported closer ties with Nazi Germany. When defeat in the Second World War ideologically and historically discredited fascism, almost all western conservatives tried to distance themselves from it. The theory of totalitarianism, which treats Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union as equivalent systems, provided the intellectual foundation. Nevertheless, many post-war western conservatives continued to admire the Franco regime in Spain, clearly conservative but also fascist in origin. With the end of the Franco and Salazar regimes in the 1970’s, the relationship between conservatism and classical European fascism became an issue for historians.

The relationship with right-wing ideologies (including some that are described as neo-fascist) is still an issue for conservatives and their opponents. Especially in Germany, there is a constant exchange of ideology and persons, between the influential national-conservative movement, and self-identified national-socialist groups. In Italy too, there is no clear line between conservatives, and movements inspired by the Italian Fascism of the 1920’s to 1940’s, including the Alleanza Nazionale which is member of the governing coalition under premier Silvio Berlusconi. Conservative attitudes to the 20th-century fascist regimes are still an issue.

Conservatism and nationalism

Nationalism has an inherent conservative tendency, since the nation itself is usually defined as a centuries-old community. Conversely, any centuries-old community is by definition attractive to traditionalist and Burkean conservatives. Conservatives may describe their preferred values as the national values, implying that they are in some way compulsory for any resident of the nation. In recent responses to terrorism, both premier Tony Blair and opposition leader Michael Howard have suggested that British values and the British way of life must be enforced in Britain. They refer to a kind of 'Britishness' or 'Englishness' which has a literary rather than a political origin - George Orwell, for instance, defended English values and even the monarchy.

Value conservatives in Europe appeal to 'national values'. Burkean conservatives value them for their own sake, because they are the result of long experience, but religious conservatives may use 'community values' as a euphemism for their own Christian values, or even for theonomy. All nationalists appeal to national symbolism - the national flag, national historical icons, founders and emblems, the work of national poets and authors, or the representation of the nation by its artists - and this is often adopted by conservatives. Military institutions in particular defend the nation and also provide tradition and ritual, so conservatives often admire military values: duty, sacrifice and obedience. But good intentions do not always bear out, and this nationalism has often and easily degenerated into militarism and jingoism. Where the nation is not independent, open patriotism is impossible anyway. Consider a Kurdish nationalist in Turkey, for instance, with no official institutions to admire. Saluting the Kurdish flag in public means risking arrest by the Turkish police - one man's patriotism is another man's treason.

Nationalism, and more generally patriotism, are therefore typical features of modern conservatism, in established nation-states. This was not the case in the 19th century, when the movements inspired by romantic nationalism were necessarily radical opponents of the then existing states, and separatist movements still are. Nor is present-day nationalism confined to self-identified conservatives, or to the right. The perception persists that nationalism is a remote or provincial ideology, but it is by definition the basis of every nation-state. Nevertheless, even nationalist conservatives sometimes prefers the less pejorative term patriotism, and Burkean conservatives would distance themselves from many nationalist groups and ideologies, on the grounds of their radicalism.

Nevertheless radical nationalist conservatism has been a major force in European history, no matter how distasteful that may be to many mainstream conservatives. Anti-immigrant and nationalist populist parties, such as France's Front National, continue to include a strong conservative element, and the conservative-nationalist tradition is very strong in Germany.

Conservatism and liberalism

In the USA, conservatism and liberalism are frequently seen as polar opposites, but in Europe, the situation is more complex. A major area of difference in the USA is that between social liberalism and social conservatism. Social liberals advocate policies promoting equality and tolerance for a wide variety of behaviour and mores, including many which conservatives feel run contrary to the established norms of American society. This difference arises in issues such as same-sex marriage, sex education, the status of Christianity relative to other religions, and others. The conflation of social and economic conservatism in the US means that the term Liberal is often especially associated with government spending on programs such as welfare. This is seen by conservatives as irresponsible spending, and encouraging behaviors resulting in poverty, whereas (social) liberals understand it as an attempt to use government intervention to promote equality, or alleviate inequality.

The situation in Europe is different. The philosophy denoted in America by the phrase Economic conservatism would, in Europe, be called market liberalism, neoliberalism, or simply liberalism. It can be considered as the political movement associated with free-market or laissez-faire economics, which in Europe traditionally corresponds with the Liberal Parties. The term may be a synonym for classical liberalism, in the tradition of Adam Smith, Friedrich A. Hayek, Milton Friedman, and Ludwig von Mises. Differences in meaning and usage of the term 'liberal' have contributed to the confusion, see Liberalism. In Europe, 'liberal-conservative' is an accepted term.

Theorists of liberalism often assert a moral justification for the free market, grounded in principles of individual liberty and individual choice. Their support is not moral or ideological, but driven by the Burkean notion of prescription: what works best is what is right. Conservatives might also emphasise the importance of civil society in this context: government intervention in the economy will make people feel less responsible for the society.

Historically, many arguments have been advanced for the free market, and liberal principles in general. Present western classical-liberalism and political conservatism may have reached their pro-market position by different routes, but by now the lines have blurred. Rarely will a politician claim that free markets are "simply more productive" or "simply the right thing to do" but a combination of both. This merging of the classical liberal and conservative positions is found in most western conservative movements.

In any case the free market itself is not an issue, for western conservative movements. They operate in long-established market economies: it is the degree of government intervention that is at issue. One archetypal free-market conservative government of the late 20th century - the Margaret Thatcher government in the UK saw deregulation as the cornerstone of contemporary economic conservatism. Thatcher added privatisation to this policy, and privatised British Airways, with remarkable success, and British Rail, with rather more mixed results. She cut taxes (especially on the upper income brackets) and slowed governmental growth. Proponents of Thatcherism attribute the unparalleled economic boom of the early 1980s to the late 1990s to these policies.

Capitalism, and the outcome of the free market, may conflict with value conservatism. At times, as the Communist Manifesto emphasised, capitalism and free markets have been profoundly subversive of the existing social order:

The bourgeoisie, by the rapid improvement of all instruments of production, by the immensely facilitated means of communication, draws all, even the most barbarian, nations into civilisation. The cheap prices of commodities are the heavy artillery with which it batters down all Chinese walls, with which it forces the barbarians’ intensely obstinate hatred of foreigners to capitulate. It compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of production...

That economic system continues to conflict with traditional attitudes, for instance in its massive distribution of pornography in many western countries. So it is possible to be a value conservative without supporting market liberalism - at present, this is a common political stance in, for example, Ireland. And not all supporters of the free market are social conservatives.

Fiscal conservatism is not a political philosophy, and more a tradition of prudence in government spending and debt. Edmund Burke, in his 'Reflections on the Revolution in France', articulated its principles:

...[I]t is to the property of the citizen, and not to the demands of the creditor of the state, that the first and original faith of civil society is pledged. The claim of the citizen is prior in time, paramount in title, superior in equity. The fortunes of individuals, whether possessed by acquisition or by descent or in virtue of a participation in the goods of some community, were no part of the creditor's security, expressed or implied...[T]he public, whether represented by a monarch or by a senate, can pledge nothing but the public estate; and it can have no public estate except in what it derives from a just and proportioned imposition upon the citizens at large.

In other words, a government doesn't have the right to run up large debts and then throw the burden on the taxpayer; the taxpayers' right not to be taxed oppressively takes precedence even over paying back debts a government may have imprudently undertaken.

Nature and environment

In early liberal philosophy 'Nature' and the environment were treated as a resource to be exploited: value derived from their human use, in accordance with the labor theory of value. Most early conservatives, however, saw the value of Nature as inherent. Both strands have influenced conservative politics in many countries, since the 19th century. The etymology emphasises the close correlation between the early conservation movement and conservative ideals. In recent decades, deep ecology has emerged as parallel, non-anthropocentric conservative philosophy, with remarkable similarities in value preferences.

Free-market liberals with environmental concerns are uncomfortable with such strong environmentalist positions. They tend to view free markets as an appropriate instrument, in this context. Given that pollution is an inefficiency, and given that consumers like "green" or "organic" products, the market should protect the environment. Others, conservative and non-conservative, radically dispute this, and see the market and commercialisation as one of the chief threats, if not the sole cause, of damage to the natural world. That may elicit no more than anti-commercial populism among value conservatives, and a shift in consumer preferences.

More fundamentally, some conservatives see ecological conservation as necessary to preserve traditional values. European conservatives often identify rural life as the source, or sole remnant, of traditional society, and have often promoted a comprehensive ruralist ideology, usually in specific national versions. Ruralist conservatism inspires several political parties, such as the French Chasse-Pêche-Nature et Tradition (Hunting-Fishing-Nature and Tradition). Conservatives are a prominent element within most European Green Parties. In Britain, the electoral system leaves little room for third parties, and a Blue-Green Alliance with the Conservative Party would be necessary for electoral success.

Technological conservatism is often part of environmentalist philosophy, rejecting especially the destructive effects on nature and ecosystems. There is also a long tradition of technological scepticism in western culture, usually directed against socially disruptive effects, and potentially dangerous consequences. The term 'conservatism' is also used in the history of technology to describe the reluctance - on grounds of cost, effort and disruption - to replace a functioning technology by another.

Biological theories and racism

Because some conservatives value what they consider 'natural' (also in the sense of pre-existing and given), conservatives often appeal to biological theories and biological analogies. They may form an integral part of a conservative position, or they may be used to justify it. The most common use of biology in conservatism is to use claimed inherent differences to justify inequality and social stratification. They correspond to the belief in inherent differences in talent in liberal social philosophy. The belief that the poor deserve their status is historically widespread, and not specific to one culture. In the late 19th century, however, European biological theories on race, culminating in the idea of Social Darwinism, became the main theoretical reference for conservative justifications of inequality. Later, several waves of IQ theories assumed this function in conservative social philosophy. Under influence of genetic research, both of these sources have merged, producing a range of vehemently disputed theories, on the genetic basis and the inevitability of inequality. Influential examples include The Bell Curve and similar work, explaining socio-economic inequality in multi-ethnic societies by hereditary differences in IQ among racial groups, and IQ and the Wealth of Nations which attributes global inequalities to national differences in average IQ. There is also a long tradition of non-biological theories of cultural superiority, which influenced 19th-century western colonialism. Partly due to the influence of the Clash of Civilizations theory, belief in the superiority of western culture has now become a standard of western conservative thought. Italian premier Silvio Berlusconi's comment on the September 11 attacks is exemplary:

We must be aware of the superiority of our civilisation, a system that has guaranteed well-being, respect for human rights and - in contrast with Islamic countries - respect for religious and political rights, a system that has as its value understanding of diversity and tolerance... The West will continue to conquer peoples, even if it means a confrontation with another civilisation, Islam, firmly entrenched where it was 1,400 years ago.[2]

Conservatism and the Right

In western democracies, 'conservative' and 'right-wing' are often used interchangeably, as near-synonyms. That is not always accurate, but it has more than incidental validity. Certainly the enemy is in both cases the same: the political left. (Although left-wing groups and individuals may have conservative social and cultural attitudes, they are not generally accepted, by self-identified conservatives, as part of the same movement). On economic policy and the economic system, conservatives and the right generally support the free market, although less so in Europe than in other places. Attitudes on some ethical and bio-ethical issues - such as opposition to abortion - are accurately described as either 'right-wing' or 'conservative'.

Burkean conservatives favour incremental over radical change, even from the right. Some conservatives distrust the xenophobic and even racist sentiments prominent on the political right. Protectionism and anti-immigration policies may conflict with free-market conservatives' support for deregulation and free trade. Some conservatives oppose military interventionism, inspired by early British conservative thinkers, such as David Hume and Edmund Burke. Burke saw imperialism as interfering with the traditions and organic make-up of the colonised societies.

However it is equally true, that there are numerous examples of theocratic religious conservatives, conservative nationalists, jingoist conservative imperialists, and conservative racists - and of ‘respectable’ conservatives allied with them. The Conservative Party in Britain was a staunch defender of the British Empire, and was responsible for initial brutal repression of African decolonisation. The revered Conservative Winston Churchill wrote in the 1920's that he was "strongly in favour of using poison gas against uncivilised tribes.", and did in fact authorise use of poison gas in Iraq.

It is the degree of political taboo, rather than inherent ideological incompatibility, that determines the overlap between 'respectable' conservatives and the right. In European parliamentary systems, conservatives currently ally with centrist groups, or even some on the left, rather than with the xenophobic-populist right. All mainstream parties in Belgium cooperate to exclude the Flemish-separatist and xenophobic Vlaams Belang, and the mainstream parties in France support each others candidates in run-off elections, where that is necessary to exclude the Front National.

Conservatives in various countries

Europe

In the United Kingdom, Burkean conservatism is the dominant tradition. However, there is no organisational continuity since the time of Edmund Burke, and he is certainly not the 'founder of the Conservative Party'. Contemporary British conservatives may trace their roots to both the Tories of Canning and the early Whigs (who opposed the monarchy). The Tories, who continued to represent the interests of the aristocracy, in contrast to the Whiggish mercantile class, dominated British politics from the 1770s and the 1830s. Burke, the so-called "Father of Modern Conservatism," articulated a 'progressive' conservative position through the Whig party.

Nominally, the modern British Conservative Party was founded out of the Tory party by Sir Robert Peel in the 1840s, splitting almost immediately, over the issue of protectionism. The anti-protectionist faction joined with some Whigs and radicals to form the Liberal coalition, which was to dominate politics for much of the rest of the nineteenth century. A Liberal-Conservative coalition during the first World War, and the rise of the Labour Party, hastened the collapse of the Liberals in the 1920s. After the second World War, the Conservative party made concessions to the socialist policies of the left. This was partly in order to regain power, but also the result of the early successes of central planning and state-ownership forming a cross-party consensus. Under Margaret Thatcher the party returned to classical liberalism. For more detail, see History of the Conservative Party.

In other parts of Europe, mainstream conservatism is often represented by the Christian-democratic parties. They form the bulk of the European Peoples Party fraction in the European Parliament. The origin of these parties is usually in Catholic parties of the late 19th and early 20th century, and Catholic social doctrine was their original inspiration. Over the years, conservatism gradually became their main ideological inspiration, and they generally became less Catholic. The German CDU and the Dutch CDA are Protestant-Catholic parties. The Bavarian sister party of the CDU, the Christian Social Union, is a deeply Catholic conservative party.

Germany and German-speaking Europe have many non-mainstream conservative movements and an active and influential conservative intellectual tradition. They influence the right wings of the CDU and CSU, and many other right-wing parties and organisations, including neo-nazi groups. However much of the German right is also radical, and officially categorised as 'anti-constitutional' by the German internal security service.

China

China is unique in experiencing roughly two millennia of "feudalism," from around the second century BC until the 20th century, during which Confucian or neo-Confucian thought was endorsed by the state. This long continuity in institution and thought produced a set of values and social standards for Chinese conservatives to defend, especially: reverence for elders, authority figures and the state examination system. These traditional Chinese values are derived from Confucianism, which has an importance in East Asia comparable to Christianity in the West, with particular emphasis on sacrifice, hierarchy, virtue and merit.

Ironically, today the Chinese Communist Party exerts the most powerful force in mainstream Chinese conservatism, as it has transitioned from strict communism into important norms of previous Chinese regimes. It is seen by some as the recipient of the Mandate of Heaven, a traditional Chinese idea, and its rulers do not protest at the designation. Just as before, the ruler is revered and generally seen as worthy of praise, with most criticism repressed not simply by law but also by taboo. The party itself has moved to a burgeoning Chinese nationalism as a basis for its legitimacy, and it does not really advocate revolutionary theory, adhering instead to a certain ideological flexibility consistent with Deng Xiaoping's dictum, seek truth from facts.

During the first twenty or so years after 1949, the Communist Party did posess a conscious revolutionary spirit. Its leader, Mao Zedong, excoriated Chinese tradition as a vestige of feudalism; the government eliminated opposing views during the Anti-Rightist Movement; the Cultural Revolution and the Red Guards tried to manufacture new Chinese "worker" values, notably by frowning on Confucian morality, issuing the Quotations from Chairman Mao Zedong instead and "reforming" traditional art to mirror the new standards. The party only transitioned after Mao's death, which opened a power vacuum that would determine the party's future orientation. Three factions wrestled to succeed Mao after his death in 1976: leftist Maoists, who wanted to continue the revolutionary mobilization; rightist restorationists, who advocated a return to the Soviet model of communism; and rightist reformers, led by Deng Xiaoping, who hoped to reduce the role of ideology in government and overhaul the economy.

Deng eventually won the seat of the party. While stressing his continuity with Mao, he soon initiated a series of economic reforms and promulgated his Four Cardinal Principles, which clearly outlined (and slightly liberalized) government control over ideology. The party today stems from Deng Xiaoping, and like him it asserts the primacy of pragmatism over communism while maintaining the iron dominion of the Communist Party. His ostensibly communist descendents, notably Jiang Zemin, continued to stray from communist theory on an ad hoc basis while incorporating any convenient parts when useful. The result combined heavy preference for economic growth, hostility to efforts to decentralize power and support for a burgeoning Chinese nationalism, a fusion Deng called Socialism with Chinese characteristics.

Traditional Chinese values have since surged, rather assertively, under the Communist regime. Chinese nationalism tends to speak highly of a centralized, powerful Chinese state, so the government is attempting to win and maintain the loyalty of both its own citizens and that of recently departed overseas Chinese. Recent bestseller China Can Say No expresses a sentiment in favor of a uniquely Chinese path that, tellingly, does not have to involve American norms, such as individualism and Western liberalism. Moreover, the tide may still be coming in for Chinese nationalism, as the next generation of Chinese leaders will have grown up in an environment of nationalism.

Since the 1990s, there has been a neoconservative movement in China (not connected with the US neoconservative movement).

See also

Further reading

  • Albert O. Hirschman. 1991. The Rhetoric of Reaction: Perversity, Futility, Jeopardy. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. ISBN 0674768671 (cloth) and ISBN 067476868X (paper). (Identifies the three basic arguments conservatives use to oppose policy change.)
  • Russell Kirk. The Conservative Mind. Regnery Publishing; 7th edition (October 1, 2001): ISBN 0895261715 (hardcover).
  • Edmund Burke. Reflections on the Revolution in France, Hackett Publishing Company, Inc. October 1997: ISBN 0872200205 (paper).

Template:Freenet links