IS INDIVIDUALISM BASIC TO CONSERVATISM?

I seem to have gotten Jim Ryan of Philosoblog a bit confused now about what conservatism is so let me progress from poking holes in his arguments to putting forward my own:

I have shown in previous posts that there is large historical precedent for the current conservative dislike of big government and the concomitant conservative attachment to individual liberty -- and I have argued therefore that a love of individual liberty is a basic value for conservatives. It is reasonable to ask, however, whether this is FUNDAMENTAL to conservatism. Could there not be a deeper level of motivation that underlies a love of individual liberty?

We find one such proposal in the conclusions drawn by some historians of the British Conservative party -- who find a certain realistic, practical and pragmatic outlook as the main enduring characteristics of Conservative thought (Feiling, 1953; Gilmour, 1978; Norton & Aughey, 1981; Standish, 1990) and this is clearly a theory about the wellsprings of conservatism rather than a description of what conservatives have tended to stand for. And it is not at all difficult to see why such skepticism has led to doubt about the benefits of extending the inevitably ham-fisted activities of government ever further into the life of the community. So we might say that this proposal is that a certain STYLE of thinking leads to a predictable CONTENT in thinking.

While this is a reasonable proposal, it does have a large philosophical problem: How do we define what is realistic, practical and pragmatic? So while I think that this proposal may well be true, garnering evidence for its truth is too big a task at least for me.

A more important alternative theory for the origins of conservatism is one that is very often quoted and finds its principal exponents in Burke (1790) and Hayek (1944) -- though both of those thinkers in fact described themselves as �Whigs� rather than as conservatives. This theory also traces policy to a style of thought. The theory basically is that there is an underlying wariness and skepticism in conservatives that makes them question ANY political policies whatever -- including policies that call for change. Conservatives need good evidence that something will work well and have the intended consequences before they will support it. And for this reason conservatives prefer �the devil they know� and want any change to be of a gradual and evolutionary kind -- progressing by small steps that can easily be reversed if the intended outcomes are not realized.

And it is this preference for �the devil they know� that has led to conservatives being caricaturized as wanting NO change when in fact all that they insist on is CAREFUL change. From Cromwell on, conservatives have never been characterized by a rejection of change for its own sake. When a regime is clearly oppressive or an experiment has clearly failed (such as State ownership of industry) conservatives find no difficulty in abandoning it and changing to something else.

But this account of conservatism is insufficient by itself. It fails to ask what the CRITERION is in evaluating change. How do we evaluate whether a policy is beneficial or not? How do we define �beneficial�? And it is in answering that question that we come back to individual liberty as being a basic value. Conservatism is a broad church and conservatives will of course use many criteria in evaluating the desirability or efficacy of particular political policies but, in making such evaluations, it is the high value that one gives to leaving the individual free to make his/her own decisions and obtain his/her own preferences that makes one a conservative. Rejection of change may be an INSTRUMENT in protecting the individual but it is no more than that.

References:
Burke, E. (1790) Reflections on the revolution in France. Any edition
Feiling, K. (1953) Principles of conservatism. Political Quarterly, 24, 129-133.
Gilmour, I.H.J.L. (1978) Inside right. London: Quartet
Hayek, F.A. (1944) The road to serfdom. London: Routledge
Norton, P. & Aughey, A. (1981) Conservatives and conservatism. London: Temple Smith
Standish, J.F. (1990) Whither conservatism? Contemporary Review 256, 299-301

**************************


LEFTIST ANGER

There is a rather sad article here by David Stolinsky. He seems pretty sad at the way his �liberal� friends cannot stand rational argument and concludes from that that his friends beliefs are �religious� rather than rational. Yet he also notes that his other friends who profess theistic religions (Christians, Jews etc.) are perfectly polite to him and give him no trouble over their religions.

I think he has got it wrong. It is anger that makes you irrational, not religion. The sort of committed Leftists that Stolinsky speaks of are angry, hating people who need a vent for that anger and they will find that vent regardless of any argument that their anger is irrational. Thus we have Chomsky�s insensate hate of everything about America (and America is the kindest civilization that has ever existed) and the mass murders committed by Communists everywhere. Some Leftists are well-meaning people but far too many are haters.

I personally do not hate anyone but those who do hate normally hate just individuals. Many Leftists, however, have a huge hate inside them that nothing could ever satiate. That is why arguing with them is so pointless.

********************

ANTI-GLOBO HYPOCRISY

Sydney today saw the usual disruptive protests that Leftists mount against any meeting of the World Trade Organization. Yet, as Robert Gottliebsen of Business Daily says in a circular just received:

It is the WTO that offers most hope for less developed countries whose main source of wealth is agriculture. But effectively they are being blocked from developed country markets. The major countries spent US$27 billion on export subsidies between 1995 and 1998 90 per cent was paid by the European Union. Since then the United States has stepped up its farm subsides. These subsidies depress prices for agricultural commodities and make poor people in depressed countries even poorer. Most agree that export food subsidies should be eliminated ---- except the Europeans who have decided to maintain their present subsidies for another ten years. If the protestors were trying to help the underdeveloped countries they would be protesting against the Europeans. The Word Trade Organisation is really the only hope we have to remove this injustice and it's a tragedy that is work is being blocked. What the protests are really about is protecting the jobs of the middle and upper classes in Western societies..

Or as Australian Trade Minister Mark Vaile put it:

"A European cow receives more (in subsidies, $4 a cow) each day than 3 billion people in the world's developing countries,".

Apparently the anti-globos want that to continue!

It is hard to believe that Leftists were once internationalists who believed in the breaking down of barriers between nations (which is what the WTO is also about). The modern world makes clear that demonstrating is a lot more important to Leftists than what they are demonstrating about.

************************

Comments? Email me: jonjayray@hotmail.com.
If there are no recent posts here, check my HomePage for a new blog address.

*************************